Adesanya vs. Paradigm Sports Management, LLC

LLC vs. Adesanya 2026-01556733 Paradigm Sports Management LLC (Paradigm Sports) and Paradigm MMA Management LLC (Paradigm MMA collectively, Paradigm) on March 18, 2026, in OCSC case no. 2026-01556733, and (2) the petition to vacate contractual arbitration award filed by Israel Adesanya (Adesanya) and Leon Edwards (Edwards) on March 20, 2026, in OCSC case no. 2026-01557071. As more fully set forth below, Paradigm’s petition to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED and Adesanya and Edwards’s petition to vacate the award is DENIED.

There are a couple of initial matters the court must address before reaching the merits of the petitions. First, the parties previously attempted to stipulate to consolidate these two cases, which present competing or crosspetitions directed to the same arbitration award. The clerk’s office, however, rejected that stipulation because the parties erroneously filed it in the higher numbered or newer case. The parties have not attempted to re-file the stipulation. Accordingly, to ensure a clear record, the court hereby orders these two cases consolidated for all purposes and designates the older case—i.e., Paradigm Sports Management LLC vs. Adesanya, case no. 2026-01556733— as the lead case. All future filings must be made in that case only.

Second, the court must note Adesanya and Edwards have improperly cited and argued three unpublished and unciteable cases. (See Adesanya and Edwards Petition at p. 9, and reply at pp. 4, 6, 7.) Specifically, they cited Chiapparelli v. Henderson, No. F046363, 2005 WL 1847221 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2005), Jackson v. X10 Cap., LP, No. A170652, 2025 WL 572271 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2025), and Nemtzov v. Kambur, No. B339114, 2025 WL 2408980, (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025). California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a) states, “Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action.”

Each of these three cases are decisions by a California Court of Appeal and none of the exceptions in rule 8.1115(b) apply. In the motion, at page 9, footnote 2, Adesanya and Edwards recognize the Chiapparelli case is not a published decision, and they claim they are solely citing it for its persuasive value. An unpublished decision, however, may not be cited for that or any other reason.

balance of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.” (Edwards Contract at ¶ 22; Adesanya Contract at ¶ 26;