AEW Alleges That Ryan Nemeth Misrepresented and Misled Them In Legal Dispute

AEW has filed a petition accusing Ryan Nemeth of misrepresenting and misleading them through conduct relating to his legal dispute against them. As you may recall, Nemeth filed a lawsuit against AEW, Tony Khan, and CM Punk in February of last year. The lawsuit alleged assault, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional interference with prospective advantage. AEW moved to compel the lawsuit into arbitration, and Nemeth filed in April 2025 to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit and enter arbitration.

Now, AEW alleges that Nemeth did so in bad faith. POST Wrestling reports that AEW filed a petition on June 5th the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida. The petition seeks to compel Nemeth to arbitrate the dispute at a JAMS administrative office nearest to Duval County, Florida, with the arbitration to be adjudicated under Florida law.

AEW alleges that after Nemeth agreed to move to arbitration, he filed a demand for arbitration with a JAMS office in Orange County, California and to have it adjudicated under California Labor Code. The petition states that Nemeth added several “unsupported claims” in his demand.

JAMS, which is a private company that helps resolve arbitrations, is the company AEW has designated in contracts to help settle disputes. AEW says that JAMS presented both sides with a list of 10 potential arbitrators. Six are located in California, three in Florida, and one in New York. Both sides can strike two options and rank the remaining in preference. AEW argues that the disproportionate number of California offices compared to Florida favors Nemeth, and that arbitrating in California is “in violation of the express terms of the agreement.”

AEW and Tony Khan filed a separate filing on Tuesday seeking to seal confidential information related to the contract agreements Nemeth singed between 2021 and 2023, saying that they contain “sensitive, confidential and proprietary information belonging to the Petitioners, including but not limited to information related to its business practices, its internal economic structures, compensation agreements, and intellectual property.”