## Facts

- Don King Productions, Inc. (DKP) claimed it held exclusive promotional rights to James “Buster” Douglas’s future heavyweight title defenses under a series of agreements, including a 1988 agreement and documents related to the Tyson–Douglas bout.
- Douglas defeated Mike Tyson on February 11, 1990 and became heavyweight champion; DKP asserted it had the exclusive right to promote Douglas’s first championship defense (expected to be against Evander Holyfield).
- DKP alleged Douglas and his manager, John P. Johnson, repudiated DKP’s claimed exclusive promotional rights and negotiated instead with Golden Nugget, Inc. and The Mirage Casino-Hotel (Mirage) to stage the Douglas–Holyfield fight in Las Vegas.
- DKP sued in the Southern District of New York for breach of contract (against Douglas and Johnson) and tortious interference with contract (against Mirage).
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the complaint; DKP also moved to dismiss Mirage’s counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the DKP–Douglas promotional contracts were invalid.

## Issues

1. Whether any party was entitled to summary judgment on DKP’s breach-of-contract claim given disputes about contract formation, integration, scope, duration, and conditions.
2. Whether any party was entitled to summary judgment on DKP’s tortious-interference claim where liability depended on the existence, enforceability, and breach of the alleged promotional contracts and Mirage’s knowledge and inducement.
3. Whether Mirage, as a nonparty to the DKP–Douglas agreements, had Article III standing to pursue a declaratory judgment that those agreements were invalid.

## Decision

- DKP’s motion for summary judgment on breach of contract was denied.
- Douglas and Johnson’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.
- Mirage’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.
- DKP’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Mirage’s declaratory-judgment counterclaim was granted; the counterclaim was dismissed for lack of standing and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment under Rule 56 is improper where the record shows genuine disputes of material fact, including disputes about contractual intent, negotiations, formation, integration, scope, duration, conditions precedent, and the legal effect of subsequent conduct.
- When contract meaning and enforceability turn on conflicting testimony and documents, those issues typically require trial rather than resolution as a matter of law.
- A tortious-interference claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment when material disputes remain about the validity and breach of the underlying contract and the alleged interferer’s knowledge and conduct.
- Declaratory-judgment jurisdiction requires a concrete, immediate controversy between parties with adverse legal interests; a nonparty that is neither a signatory nor an intended third-party beneficiary generally lacks a legally protected interest to litigate a contract’s validity.
- A contingent economic interest tied to potential tort liability does not, by itself, supply standing to seek a declaration about the validity of contracts between other parties.

## Conclusion

The court held that disputed facts concerning the formation and effect of the alleged promotional agreements barred summary judgment for any party on the breach and interference claims, and it dismissed Mirage’s declaratory counterclaim because a nonparty lacked standing to obtain a declaration about the validity of contracts to which it was a stranger.


Don King Prods., Inc. v. Douglas, 742 F. Supp. 741 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)