wrestling / News

Colt Cabana Asks For Dismissal In Response Against CM Punk’s Countersuit

June 28, 2019 | Posted by Joseph Lee
Colt Cabana

We reported two days ago that CM Punk had filed a countersuit in his ongoing legal battle with Colt Cabana over legal fees raised in the lawsuit by Dr. Chris Amann. Punk is seeking $600,000 and claims that he spent over $1.2 million in legal fees when he and Cabana were jointly defended in Amann’s lawsuit. He claims that Cabana didn’t add anything toward expenses and said that his refusal to do that “violated fundamental principles of justice, equality, and good conscience.”

PWInsider reports that Cabana has responded to Punk’s countersuit and has requested that a judge dismiss it. Punk claimed that he and Cabana hired The Loeb Firm together to represent them against Amann, and Cabana claims that Punk “simply alleges that the parties jointly retained the Loeb Firm to represent them in the Amann Lawsuit and concludes, without any factual support whatsoever, that Colton retained a benefit in the form of high-quality, professional legal services provided by the Loeb Firm. Brooks’ Counterclaim fails to describe a single act or service done or performed for or on behalf of Colton by the Loeb Firm in the Amann Lawsuit that Brooks purportedly paid for, let alone the reasonable value of same.”

Cabana also stated that it wasn’t until Loeb dropped him as a client and he hired his own representation that Amann dropped his defamation claim against him, seemingly hinting that Loeb wasn’t able to do that. In response to Punk’s claim that Cabana didn’t pay him back for his share of the legal bill, Cabana said that Punk testified that he told him: “I would make sure I took care of everything, because it was unfair that he’s being lumped in and attacked. So I told him I would take care of it.” Punk reportedly claimed that he would make sure Cabana was “100% covered” with respect to legal fees, and the testimony proves that Cabana was never expected to pay him back. Cabana claims that Punk suddenly demanded half of the fees in an April 2016 email.

Cabana claims that Punk didn’t want him to get his own attorney because he “believed and was concerned that Colton would potentially make misrepresentations and false statements to benefit himself and harm Brooks with respect to the Amann Lawsuit.” The motion also statest hat the emails between the two “in May and June of 2016, establish an express agreement among the parties concerning the same subject raised in Brooks’ Counterclaim and, in any event, even if a contract implied in law ever previously existed among the parties that would otherwise impose any liability on Colton for any legal costs or fees paid by Brooks in the defense of the Amann Lawsuit (none did), these same emails also establish that Brooks released Colton from such liability.”

Cabana says that Punk agreed to pay all of the legal fees and had no problem with it until asking Cabana to cover a payment “until I got paid when I fought.” Cabana turned that down, and that may be when the issues started. The motion stated: “If Brooks expected that Colton was to be responsible for any of the Loeb Firm’s bills in the Amann Lawsuit, why on earth would Brooks have added the words “until I got paid when I fought” to Brooks’ aforesaid request? Is Brooks seriously suggesting to this Court that he was going to repay Colton after being paid to fight and then demand that Colton repay Brooks what Brooks had just repaid Colton? Ridiculous.

Cabana said that he was asked to pay half of the Loeb Firm bill but was never asked to contribute “except for the email Colton received from Brooks in late April of 2016 and a related email from the Loeb Firm to Colton dated May 26, 2016, in which Colton was asked by the Loeb Firm if Colton “could contribute anything to the legal fees” in the Amann Lawsuit, Colton has never been asked to pay any of the Loeb Firm’s statements for costs or legal services in the Amman Lawsuit; and the first and only notice Colton ever received from Brooks, or from any of Brooks’ representatives, demanding reimbursement for any costs or legal fees paid by Brooks in connection with Colton’s legal representation and/or Brooks’ legal representation in the Amann Lawsuit was in Brooks’ Counterclaim.” It also said that Brooks paid it as a “friendly act” and according to Illinois law, it is “far too late” for the courts to get involved since it was a year after Cabana sued him and after his third lawsuit filing that Punk tried to get the money.

The response stated that “the timing of Brooks’ meritless Counterclaim makes it somewhat obvious that Brooks, who is very wealthy and can afford to defend against Colton’s claims, came up with his claim against Colton, who is not so wealthy, merely as a means to possibly extort an early settlement of this lawsuit.” Finally, Cabana said that Punk’s countersuit’s claims of a contract that would have him pay Punk back for half of the fees “law fails as a matter of law.”

article topics :

CM Punk, Colt Cabana, Joseph Lee