A federal judge in Ohio on Tuesday denied Klutch Sports ‘ request to order arbitration for a lawsuit brought by NBA player agent Mark Termini over payments for$ 1.4 billion in contracts that LeBron James, Draymond Green, and other players negotiated.
According to U.S. District Judge Patricia Anne Gaughan, Termini’s agreement with Klutch does not have a clause for mediation, and while NBPA laws allow for mediation, Termini’s claims do not “fall within the substantial range of claims content to mediation.” Gaughan also denied Klutch’s movement to reject Termini’s breach of contract state, though sided with Klutch in dismissing Termini’s finance state.

The net result: A portion of Termini’s lawsuit remains on the docket and—barring a settlement ( more on that below ) or other filings—is headed for pretrial discovery. That would require NBA players to give sworn statements and share files of digital correspondence that revealed their thoughts on Termini or Paul’s main focus.
The controversy centers on Termini’s claim that he was in charge of negotiating attractive Klutch person contracts in the 2010s but that Paul, who is more well-known, accepted the blame and received media praise. Termini even contends that Klutch undertook illicit measures to devalue Termini’s settlement, including getting third parties to perform some of the work Junction claims he was hired to do. He also alleges that Klutch did not pay him the full sum for his work. Terminini claims that he is owed more than$ 4.9 million for alleged harm and paid taxes.
Klutch denies any wrongdoing and disputes Termini’s reimagining of activities. Due to the requirement that NBA player agents deal with mediation rules in NBPA laws, Klutch even contends that Termini’s problems should not be heard in court. Those rules dictate that if an adviser is certified by the NBPA, the representative lawfully agrees to arbitrate—and so no litigate—grievances. Because the subject matter was content to NBPA requirements, a federal district judge in Texas in 2022 decided to dismiss Nerlens Noel’s circumstance against Paul over the caliber of Paul’s deal counsel to mediation.
However, Gaughan ruled in her ruling that the Termini case should not be brought before arbitration because she believes it falls outside the purview of NBPA arbitration rules. Per those provisions, arbitration is appropriate for three types of disputes: the NBPA denying an application ( not applicable ), a dispute between player and agent over a contract ( not applicable ) and, relevant to Termini and Paul, a dispute between two or more agents over fees owed when they jointly represent a player.
Gaughan discovered that while Termini and Paul litigate money owed under player contracts, it does not relate to fees owed under a player contract. Instead, it involves fees that Klutch claims to have owed to Termini under a contract that Termini signed to provide services to Klutch. Gaughan thought that distinction exempts Termini’s grievances from the purview of mandatory arbitration.

Additionally, the judge determined that Termini’s breach of contract claim is a sufficient basis for moving past a dismissal motion. Gaughan pointed out that Klutch allegedly hired new agents in contravention of a contract between Termini and Klutch that included an exclusivity clause. She also brought up Termini’s claim that Klutch had delayed executing a number of player contracts in 2020 in order to avoid paying him the service fees he had negotiated in his Klutch contract. Although Klutch insists Termini’s case is meritless, it remains to be seen whether Termini can prove through evidence and testimony that Klutch actually breached the contract. Gaughan ruled Termini’s breach claim to be sufficient at this stage of the litigation.
The judge was less swayed by Termini’s claim for accounting, which is a demand for access to detailed schedules, transactions and other documented materials related to client payments. A demand for an accounting is not a standalone claim but rather a remedy, according to Gaughan. She added that because accounting “is only available as an equitable remedy in the absence of an adequate remedy at law,” and Termini has n’t made such an allegation, it ca n’t remedy Termini’s alleged breach of contract. Consequently, Gaughan granted Klutch’s motion to dismiss the accounting claim and thus narrowed the scope of his case.
Termini, Paul, Klutch officials, and potential players will now be required to give sworn testimony and share emails, documents, and other correspondence relevant to the contractual dispute during pretrial discovery. It’s possible the parties will negotiate a settlement to end the litigation, which is fundamentally about Termini’s demand for money. The parties ‘ discussions about settlement options are further clarified by Gaughan’s ruling. The parties are aware that if they do n’t resolve the dispute in court, they will need to disclose information that they might otherwise prefer to keep quiet while non-party witnesses, possibly including players, may be hampered by having to participate in this litigation.