.jpg)
Back in February, a federal court in Connecticut dismissed a lawsuit brought by three former wrestlers who contended, among other things, that they were improperly classified as independent contractors.
The case garnered national attention (see, for example, this post by Zach Lowe at The American Lawyer) for a variety of reasons, including the disclosure
Two of the three wrestlers, whose lawsuit against World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ("WWE") was dismissed late last month, have asked a federal court to reconsider the matter and give them another opportunity to plead their case against the WWE.
In a motion to alter/amend the judgment filed late Wednesday (download available here), Scott Levy and Christopher
In a closely-watched case, a federal district court last week threw out claims by three wrestlers that they were employees, rather than independent contractors of the World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) in a thorough repudiation of their claims.
The decision in Levy v. WWE (download here) is based, in part on the language of
The WWE has filed its reply brief (download here) in further support of its motion to dismiss yesterday contending that three former wrestlers "cannot escape the clear language of the booking contracts". For background on the case involving "Raven" and two othe
r former wrestlers, click here.
The brief is filled with lots of "smackdowns" (to borrow a wrestling phrase) chiding
Many weeks after the WWE filed its motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by three former WWE wrestlers ("Raven" and "Kanyon" and others — otherwise known as Scott Levy, Chris Klucsartis and Michael Sanders ), the wrestlers have fired back filing their papers opposing WWE’s motion. (For full coverage of this lawsuit, click here.)
The
UPDATE 10/8/08 – I have posted a FAQ on the lawsuit this morning due to the extraordinary interest in this subject. You can find it here.
UPDATE 10/7/08 – Welcome various wrestling fans (who are visiting by the thousands this morning)! The links to the contracts are below.
One note to clarify some of the