WWE Files Motion To Dismiss TNA's Lawsuit
Robert Tilton
04 Jul 2012
According to PWInsider.com, WWE filed a motion on 6/28 with the Nashville Chancery Court requesting that TNA's lawsuit against them be dismissed. WWE's argument requesting the dismissal noted:
*TNA's lawsuit did not feature any legitimate proof that WWE had attempted to entice contracted TNA talents, including the named Ric Flair, to come work for them and breach their TNA deals.
*That Flair, who was described as a signed TNA talent in the lawsuit, had actually been terminated by TNA prior to the lawsuit being filed.
*TNA's allegation that WWE had misappropriated their trade secrets falls under the scope of TN's Uniform Trade Acts Secret (TUTSA)and that TNA has "failed to state claims upon which relief must be granted" in their lawsuit. Since TNA's only claim of unfair competition is based on the allegation that WWE received material from Brian Wittenstein to allegedly coerce their wrestlers to come to WWE, it would fai to qualify to go further as a lawsuit under TUTSA.
*The same TUTSA requirements would prevent TNA's conspiracy claim against WWE.
*TNA's claim of conversion, under TUTSA would require that physical property alleged to have been stolen derives its value from the trade secrets it contains. Since the only physical property were spreadsheets and files Brian Wittenstein allegedly took when he left his employment at TNA, the actual property has no value and would be tossed out under TUTSA.
*TUTSA would prevent TNA's claim of torturous interference for WWE allegedly going after Ric Flair as TNA would need to prove an existing business relationship between Flair and TNA, prove that WWE moved forward despite that knowledge and that they intended to get Flair to breach his deal.
WWE requested that all of the allegations against them be dismissed noting, "it is not only appropriate as a matter of law but will simplify matters for discovery and trial."
*TNA's lawsuit did not feature any legitimate proof that WWE had attempted to entice contracted TNA talents, including the named Ric Flair, to come work for them and breach their TNA deals.
*That Flair, who was described as a signed TNA talent in the lawsuit, had actually been terminated by TNA prior to the lawsuit being filed.
*TNA's allegation that WWE had misappropriated their trade secrets falls under the scope of TN's Uniform Trade Acts Secret (TUTSA)and that TNA has "failed to state claims upon which relief must be granted" in their lawsuit. Since TNA's only claim of unfair competition is based on the allegation that WWE received material from Brian Wittenstein to allegedly coerce their wrestlers to come to WWE, it would fai to qualify to go further as a lawsuit under TUTSA.
*The same TUTSA requirements would prevent TNA's conspiracy claim against WWE.
*TNA's claim of conversion, under TUTSA would require that physical property alleged to have been stolen derives its value from the trade secrets it contains. Since the only physical property were spreadsheets and files Brian Wittenstein allegedly took when he left his employment at TNA, the actual property has no value and would be tossed out under TUTSA.
*TUTSA would prevent TNA's claim of torturous interference for WWE allegedly going after Ric Flair as TNA would need to prove an existing business relationship between Flair and TNA, prove that WWE moved forward despite that knowledge and that they intended to get Flair to breach his deal.
WWE requested that all of the allegations against them be dismissed noting, "it is not only appropriate as a matter of law but will simplify matters for discovery and trial."
wifiaero
04 Jul 2012
It was such a fail from the start. Sad to say but once again another failure added to TNA list.
KennyKaizer
04 Jul 2012
They were really grasping at straws, so stupid to fill a lawsuit over something that has no legit evidence.
Dorianna_Grey
04 Jul 2012
If TNA even had a case to begin with I'd bet WWE would probibly try to draw this out as long as they could to make it even harder on TNA financially to continue the legal battle.
EnigmaMinded
05 Jul 2012
I guess we will see what the court rules about the dismissal.
