An entertainment company says boxer Ryan Garcia feigned an injury last year to back out of an exhibition fight, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in California.
Fanmio, the company based in Florida, is suing Garcia for breach of contract. The lawsuit centers on a exhibition that was to pit Garcia against Rukiya Anpo – a bout that would have given Garcia a chance to fight while he is serving a one-year suspension for testing positive for a banned substance.
Garcia announced Dec. 15 he had suffered a wrist injury during training camp and would have to postpone the exhibition fight against on Dec. 30 in Tokyo. He had agreed to the exhibition and was contractually obligated to participate, according to the complaint.
But Fanmio, the promoter for the exhibition, said Garcia ‘feigned’ the injury and backed out on Dec. 14, a day before the event.
On Jan. 20, it was announced that Garcia would fight in Rolly Romero in New York on May 2, about two weeks after his suspension is set to end. He tested positive for Ostarine the weekend of his April 2024 fight against Devin Haney in Brooklyn that Garcia won by majority decision.
“Instead, with no sign of any surgery or recovery from the ‘injury’ that prevented him from participating in the Exhibition, Garcia is set to fight against Rolly Romero in New York on May 2 — the Times Square Fight,’ the complaint states.
Lupe Valencia, an attorney who represents Garcia, told USA TODAY Sports the boxer ‘didn’t do anything wrong and we’re going to respond to the lawsuit. There’s nothing more to add than that.’
A news release issued Dec. 15 said the boxer had been evaluated three days earlier by orthopedic surgeon Steven Shin of Cedars-Sinai Orthopaedics in Los Angeles for an aggravated bilateral wrist injury.
“I recommend that he hold off on sparring and boxing matches for several weeks,’ Shin said, according to the news release. “Treatment options will be discussed with Mr. Garcia after further evaluation.”
Fanmio also is suing Golden Boy Promotions, with which Garcia is under contract. Fanmio says Golden Boy Promotions ‘improperly used its influence over and contract with Garcia to prevent the match from happening.’
Eric Gomez, president of Golden Boy Promotions, did not immediately respond to USA TODAY Sports’ requests for comment left by voicemail and text message.
Golden Boy Promotions, founded by retired boxer Oscar De La Hoya, demanded a “king’s ransom’ from Fanmio to allow the fight to go forward, according to the complaint.
That, according to the complaint, “ultimately led to the boxer relying on a pre-existing injury and backing out of the fight – when Fanmio refused to agree to Golden Boy’s terms.’
Announcing the postponement of the fight on Dec. 15, Fanmio CEO Solomon Engel wished Garcia a speedy recovery and said they looked forward to ‘announcing a new date.’
By that point, according to the complaint, Fanmio had incurred more than $1 million in expenses working to promote the fight. The company is suing for damages in excess of $75,000, according to the complaint.
Of the lawsuit, the complaint states: ‘This action is the story of a suspended boxer, Garcia—in dire need of earning opportunities—who found a promoter and a worldwide entertainment broadcast company (Fanmio)willing to take a chance on him; only for Garcia to abandon them when another promoter (GoldenBoy) improperly claimed that an exhibition boxing match – in which Garcia was contractuallyobligated to participate – could not happen because of Golden Boy’s contract with Garcia.’
Garcia and Golden Boy both stand to profit handsomely from the May 2 fight in New York, according to the complaint.
“Upon information and belief, Garcia is being paid $40 million for the Times Square Fight and his next fight through Golden Boy,’ the complaint states. “Golden Boy is expected to see profits well in excess of that given Garcia’s popularity.’
In addition to breach of contract, the complaint cites unjust enrichment, tortious interference, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, declaratory judgment and promissory estoppel.
