On January 12, 2017, lawyers representing Ice Cube’s Big3 Basketball, LLC asked a New York federal court judge to dismiss a suit brought by Champions League, Inc. (Champions). Back on October 2017, Big3 submitted a memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss. As we have previously covered, rapper and actor, Ice Cube, owns the 3-on-3 basketball league, Big3. Big3 is a ten-week season that features several former NBA players, including Ron Artest, Corey Maggette, Kendall Gill, and most recently, Nate Robinson. Champions is similar to Big3, as it also relies on former NBA players to make up teams that play 5-on-5. Back in September 2017, Champions sued Big3 for breaching an agreement that supposedly permitted players to play in both leagues. However, Big3 filed its own lawsuit against Champions for allegedly falsely telling investors that Big3 stole Champions players.
In October 2017, Big3 moved to dismiss Champions’ complaint. According to Big3’s memorandum of law, Champions’ league was created in 2014 and has raised $6.6 million from investors, but has yet to play its first game. Big3 has even gone as far as claiming that Champions’ is a ponzi scheme. Big3 claims the owner of Champions is now looking for people to blame for the league’s shortcomings. According to the memorandum of law, Champions first blamed the weather, then the NBA, now they are blaming Big3. Champions’ complaint alleges that in February 2017, on a phone call between a co-founder of the Big3 and the founder of Champions, the two made an oral agreement that they would coordinate schedules so players could participate in the both leagues. The complaint further alleges that these players could not participate because of their contracts with the Big3. Ultimately, Champions’ inaugural game was canceled due to conflicting contracts, Big3 allegedly threating its players that they cannot play for Champions, and other misconduct by the Big3.
According to Big3, the facts in Champions’ complaint contradict facts pled by Champions in prior litigation brought in the Southern District of New York. Now, Big3 asked a New York federal court judge to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which states a claim may be dismissed because of a plaintiff’s “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Big3 claims that Champions failed to state a claim for breach of contract because Champions failed to show that a contract existed between Champions and Big3. Thus, Champions cannot claim they were injured because they relied a seemingly nonexistent contract. Finally, Champions failed to identify a single basketball player who was prevented from playing in the Champions’ league, nor had Champions alleged which basketball players were threatened or how they were threatened.