Flo’s lawsuit against Willie and Rokfin
- Thread starter Chickenman Testa
- Start date
You’ve shopped this post to more outlets than old SHP with his Army wrestling post
I feel bad for Jammen. Can't imagine a New Years hangover lasting 10 years with no end in sight.
i think they mentioned on the last one that it went powerade -> xmas with family -> midlands -> scuffle for some or most of the normal crew
Yeah, but the major sports get major coverage during the holidays. I thought Flo was trying to join the big time.
There's been some activity in the case and one of the Mat posters has been helpfully posting documents. This link is to Willie and Rokfin's Answer to Flo's original petition. And this link is to the temporary restraining order.
The docket also suggests that there were a few other filings which aren't yet posted, one which was a motion by defendant(s), I'm guessing to dismiss, and one to substitute/withdraw counsel (which defendant, between Rokfin and Willie, isn't clear, but it's worth noting that the Answer for each was effectively identical, though signed by two different attorneys) (EDIT to add that the docket makes clear that there are new attorneys for both defendants, for Willie, Carlos Soltero, and for Rokfin, Andrew Broadaway and Scott Brutocao).
As for defendants' Answers, after a general denial, they attack the validity of the non-compete for the same reasons I pointed out: i.e., unsupported by consideration; geographic region is unreasonable in scope; scope of activity unreasonable in scope; and time aspect imposes an unreasonable restraint beyond Flo's legitimate business interests.
The TRO is pasted below. Note the hilarious misspelling of Rokfin as "Rofkin" throughout. Though this is a court order, the language likely came from Flo's lawyers, which the judge then amended in pen. I've indicated handwritten amendments in italics.
1. Defendant Saylor shall not compete against FloSports by providing products and services in the sports video industry, including by performing Services services as an employee, consultant or otherwise for Rofkin or any FloSports competitor, in the United States, including any work that is broadcast in the United States.
2. Defendant Saylor shall not participate in the management, operating, ownership, financing, or control of Rofkin or of any other person, corporation, firm, or other entity that is engaged in providing products and services in the sports video industry within the United States, including any work that is broadcast in the United States.
3. Defendant Saylor shall not perform for Rofkin, as an employee, consultant, or otherwise, the same or similar duties Saylor performed for FloSports, including creation of sports-video content.
4. Defendant Rofkin shall not employ or engage Saylor, as an employee, consultant, contributor or otherwise, to perform sports video industry services for Rofkin in the United States, including any work that is broadcast in the United States.
5. Defendants Saylor and Rofkin shall not use, disclose, or publish any FloSports proprietary information relating to FloSports' business or proposed business that were learned or discovered by Saylor during the term of his FloSports employment, including: inventions, trade secrets, ideas, processes, formulas, data, lists, programs, other works of authorship, know-how, improvements, discoveries, developments, designs, techniques, information regarding plans for research, development, new products and services, marketing and selling, business plans, budgets and unpublished financial statements, licenses, prices and costs, suppliers, customer lists and customers.
6. Defendants Saylor and Rofkin shall not retain within their possession drawings, notes, memoranda, specifications, devices, formulas, documents, nor any other material containing or disclosing any FloSports company information, whether in hard copy or electronic form. Defendants Saylor and Rofkin are ordered to deliver all such material, and any copies thereof, to FloSports by 5:00 p.m. on December 30th ,2019. Provided, however Martin Floreoni may retain FloSports information he was provided as a shareholder.
The key paragraph is the first. Although it seems more narrowly drawn than what Flo would prefer, there's likely going to be wide disagreement as to precisely what is meant by "providing products and services in the sports video industry" especially as it concerns Twitter usage.
From Flo's perspective, tweeting about wrestling events is integral to their employees' jobs, regardless of whether they're actually covering a particular event. So I imagine they'd want to argue that Willie is violating the injunction by tweeting about wrestling period, because that's what he did for Flo, and that's what other Flo employees do.
But Flo needs to be careful not to ask too much because the judge is likely going to be very wary against construing the non-compete as barring Willie from discussing wrestling at all, for many reasons, the first amendment and Texas antitrust law included.
The TRO (dated 12/18) sets a hearing for January 30, but that may have been amended by a subsequent order on 12/23 which hasn't been posted anywhere but clearly exists. This order may have also amended the terms of the TRO and I think probably did, at least with respect to time. EDIT to mention that I failed to notice that in the second link an amended TRO, dated the following day, is included and does amend the time from January 30 to December 30. Rokfin's misspelling went uncorrected, though.
The docket also suggests that there were a few other filings which aren't yet posted, one which was a motion by defendant(s), I'm guessing to dismiss, and one to substitute/withdraw counsel (which defendant, between Rokfin and Willie, isn't clear, but it's worth noting that the Answer for each was effectively identical, though signed by two different attorneys) (EDIT to add that the docket makes clear that there are new attorneys for both defendants, for Willie, Carlos Soltero, and for Rokfin, Andrew Broadaway and Scott Brutocao).
As for defendants' Answers, after a general denial, they attack the validity of the non-compete for the same reasons I pointed out: i.e., unsupported by consideration; geographic region is unreasonable in scope; scope of activity unreasonable in scope; and time aspect imposes an unreasonable restraint beyond Flo's legitimate business interests.
The TRO is pasted below. Note the hilarious misspelling of Rokfin as "Rofkin" throughout. Though this is a court order, the language likely came from Flo's lawyers, which the judge then amended in pen. I've indicated handwritten amendments in italics.
1. Defendant Saylor shall not compete against FloSports by providing products and services in the sports video industry, including by performing Services services as an employee, consultant or otherwise for Rofkin or any FloSports competitor, in the United States, including any work that is broadcast in the United States.
2. Defendant Saylor shall not participate in the management, operating, ownership, financing, or control of Rofkin or of any other person, corporation, firm, or other entity that is engaged in providing products and services in the sports video industry within the United States, including any work that is broadcast in the United States.
3. Defendant Saylor shall not perform for Rofkin, as an employee, consultant, or otherwise, the same or similar duties Saylor performed for FloSports, including creation of sports-video content.
4. Defendant Rofkin shall not employ or engage Saylor, as an employee, consultant, contributor or otherwise, to perform sports video industry services for Rofkin in the United States, including any work that is broadcast in the United States.
5. Defendants Saylor and Rofkin shall not use, disclose, or publish any FloSports proprietary information relating to FloSports' business or proposed business that were learned or discovered by Saylor during the term of his FloSports employment, including: inventions, trade secrets, ideas, processes, formulas, data, lists, programs, other works of authorship, know-how, improvements, discoveries, developments, designs, techniques, information regarding plans for research, development, new products and services, marketing and selling, business plans, budgets and unpublished financial statements, licenses, prices and costs, suppliers, customer lists and customers.
6. Defendants Saylor and Rofkin shall not retain within their possession drawings, notes, memoranda, specifications, devices, formulas, documents, nor any other material containing or disclosing any FloSports company information, whether in hard copy or electronic form. Defendants Saylor and Rofkin are ordered to deliver all such material, and any copies thereof, to FloSports by 5:00 p.m. on December 30th ,2019. Provided, however Martin Floreoni may retain FloSports information he was provided as a shareholder.
The key paragraph is the first. Although it seems more narrowly drawn than what Flo would prefer, there's likely going to be wide disagreement as to precisely what is meant by "providing products and services in the sports video industry" especially as it concerns Twitter usage.
From Flo's perspective, tweeting about wrestling events is integral to their employees' jobs, regardless of whether they're actually covering a particular event. So I imagine they'd want to argue that Willie is violating the injunction by tweeting about wrestling period, because that's what he did for Flo, and that's what other Flo employees do.
But Flo needs to be careful not to ask too much because the judge is likely going to be very wary against construing the non-compete as barring Willie from discussing wrestling at all, for many reasons, the first amendment and Texas antitrust law included.
The TRO (dated 12/18) sets a hearing for January 30, but that may have been amended by a subsequent order on 12/23 which hasn't been posted anywhere but clearly exists. This order may have also amended the terms of the TRO and I think probably did, at least with respect to time. EDIT to mention that I failed to notice that in the second link an amended TRO, dated the following day, is included and does amend the time from January 30 to December 30. Rokfin's misspelling went uncorrected, though.
Last edited:
Maybe also how "sports video industry" is defined?
Would it be legally valid for Willie to produce everything else (i.e., rankings, written analysis, still photos, event organizing, etc.) as long as he does no videos of wrestling matches for a year?
I don't think the intent was to use "video" as limiting only to video content, but rather to describe what Flo does and create some room for Willie to be employed in ways that don't set him as competing against Flo. But in that respect it's still not very helpful because Flo does a lot of things, including, as I pointed out above, tweet about wrestling. And recall that it was rankings that landed this in court in the first place.
A smarter approach would have been to precisely describe what Flo does that Willie can't do, or rather describe what Willie could do.
EDIT to add that as one of the Mat commenters pointed out, the judge could have described what this meant in the hearing and what she would and wouldn't tolerate.
Last edited:
Doesn't look like willie is doing much but tweeting hot takes since the TRO went into enforcement, so does that mean anything
I don't infer much about the TRO from Willie tweeting because for all I know Willie is tweeting against the advice of his attorney. If I were his attorney I'd have advised against tweeting in order to underscore (for the judge's attention) the impact of the non-compete on his livelihood and the near impossibility of drawing a line between tweeting about wrestling (in a way that doesn't violate a non-compete) and doing your job as an employee for a wrestling media company (in a way that does).
Thanks again Tikk for your perspective on this. Your comments provide readers without formal legal training/credentials (like myself) with an insight as to how the court or either the plaintiff or defendant attorneys may approach this case. As a business leader who has signed countless agreements (NDA's, Non Competes, Purchase Contracts, Leases, Distribution Agreements, Intellectual Property Claims, Union Contracts, etc) I typically have learned something new during the negotiation, or unfortunately if necessary the litigation process of every agreement I have signed. With regard to this specific case your comments regarding how the court may view Flo's restrictive language regarding the scope of activities covered and the geographic jurisdiction of where those activities may or may not be impacted has been very helpful.
On a side note, I noticed that the "Attorney for Defendant Rokfin" in the second attachment is John Reenan from Dallas, TX. I have no idea if there is a connection or not but it would be interesting to know whether this attorney was related to Nick Reenan who currently wrestles for NC State. If my memory is correct, I believe Nick Reenan wrestled for one of the High Schools in the Dallas Area prior to Transferring to Wyoming Seminary. I could be wrong about that and it certainly doesn't have any direct impact on this case but I found that possible connection interesting.
Thanks for the kind words. I did notice that John Reenan was Rokfin's attorney (I believe he's no longer representing Rokfin) and kept meaning to mention that I believe it is indeed Nick's father.
The judge extended the TRO on me and said she'd rule Friday (tomorrow).
wish me luck, boys.
wish me luck, boys.
wish you luck! its time that the little guy finally gets one from the man.
I'm going to speculate that Willie's and Rokfin's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard and rejected today by the judge, who appears to have found an interesting middle ground and modified the injunction to include only video content. I think that's a good sign for Willie and Rokfin because the judge is clearly unconcerned by Willie potentially causing harm to Flo by doing precisely what drove the case into court, rankings.
I think the line between video and non-video content is arbitrary and not supported by the language of the non-compete itself and that at trial the judge will have a hard time justifying maintaining the injunction on that basis.
Assume the video is driven by how the judge defined the competitive market
I'm going to speculate that Willie's and Rokfin's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard and rejected today by the judge, who appears to have found an interesting middle ground and modified the injunction to include only video content. I think that's a good sign for Willie and Rokfin because the judge is clearly unconcerned by Willie potentially causing harm to Flo by doing precisely what drove the case into court, rankings.
I think the line between video and non-video content is arbitrary and not supported by the language of the non-compete itself and that at trial the judge will have a hard time justifying maintaining the injunction on that basis.
(One of?) Willie's day(s) in court was livestreamed today.
Last edited:
Willie should be flattered at all this attention. Dunno what they were paying him but I imagine Flo is going well beyond that figure burning through legal fees. Maybe they're trying to make an example out of him. Maybe it's about bad blood between the Floriani brothers. But I'm having trouble seeing how Flo is suffering financial harm beyond whatever they're overpaying to the lawyers.
Not going to try and read into whether Willie is or isn't violating various injunctions, but ideologically I'm inclined to view most non-compete clauses--especially with respect to journalism--as overreaches and first amendment minefields. Sure, everything has a price and it's at least possible to sell your silence and waive any first amendment claims. But my recollection here is that Flo is relying on the standard employment agreement clauses, which act as severe restraints on employees' mobility. And in a pool as small as wrestling media, they should be viewed as void and unenforceable per public policy
Not going to try and read into whether Willie is or isn't violating various injunctions, but ideologically I'm inclined to view most non-compete clauses--especially with respect to journalism--as overreaches and first amendment minefields. Sure, everything has a price and it's at least possible to sell your silence and waive any first amendment claims. But my recollection here is that Flo is relying on the standard employment agreement clauses, which act as severe restraints on employees' mobility. And in a pool as small as wrestling media, they should be viewed as void and unenforceable per public policy
Last edited:
I’ve only gotten through the opening statements so far but this was addressed:
Willie made $45K and lawyer fees for this case will be $1million+, with the defense making the claim that Willie was just a pawn in Flo’s spat with Rokfin/Martin
(PS thought it was funny the judge kept saying Rofkin)
After watching all 3 1/2 hours of this:
I canceled my Flo subscription. Flo's counsel Burgess is as inept as their big event steaming ability.
I canceled my Flo subscription. Flo's counsel Burgess is as inept as their big event steaming ability.
