clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Agent’s lawsuit against Nate Diaz dismissed in Texas

New, 13 comments
UFC 202 Photos Esther Lin, MMA Fighting

Nate Diaz got a big win heading into his potential UFC comeback.

A Texas judge dismissed a lawsuit last week against the popular UFC fighter that was filed by his former agent, the Ballengee Group, last June, MMA Fighting confirmed Monday. TMZ was the first to report the news.

Ballengee Group was seeking more than $1 million from Diaz, claiming he committed theft, breach of contract and fraud, among other claims.

Ballengee said in the complaint that it helped Diaz negotiate his contract for the UFC 202 fight against Conor McGregor, then Diaz fired them and never paid the company a percentage of his income. Ballengee also said in the complaint that it had advised Diaz in deals for his fights with Michael Johnson and Rafael dos Anjos.

The suit was filed in Dallas County (Texas) District Court — and that was the issue. The judge tossed it out Friday, saying it did not belong in Texas, per the document granting Diaz’s team’s motion to dismiss. Judge Jane J. Boyle wrote that Ballengee “failed to demonstrate that this court should exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants.”

Ballengee, which is based in Texas, could take the lawsuit elsewhere. The lawsuit against Diaz’s attorney Sam Awad, which was similar to the one against the fighter, was also dismissed for the same reason.

“We are very pleased the Court dismissed the case because Nate has not fought in Texas and the case should not have been filed in Texas,” Diaz’s attorney Jeremiah Reynolds said in a statement.

Diaz has not fought since that UFC 202 majority decision loss to McGregor. Last month, he posted on social media, teasing that he’d like to return to the Octagon in May or June.

In a statement to MMA Fighting, Ballengee’s attorney Jason Friedman said his client will continue with the case in either California or Nevada.

“While it was my Client’s position that Diaz had availed himself to be sued in Texas, unfortunately the Texas Court did not share the same view,” Friedman wrote. “However, the Court’s ruling has no affect on the merits of the case and my Client does intend to vigorously pursue its claims in another venue whether it be California or Nevada and is looking forward to its day in Court.”