Writer’s Note: Further information on the Jeff Jarrett versus Anthem-Media Case can be found in the links below:
- Jeff Jarrett vs. Anthem Lawsuit Mistrial Caused By The Court System, Lawyer Teams
- Mistrial Declared In Jeff Jarrett Versus Anthem Media Case – Details
- Trial Between Jeff Jarrett and Anthem Media Set To Resume Tomorrow
According to a report provided by PWInsider we have a new update on the ongoing legal dispute between Jeff Jarrett and Anthem Sports, the parent company of Impact Wrestling. Jeff Jarrett’s lawsuit against Anthem was declared a mistrial after the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but damages were not awarded. Now, it appears the judge in the case wants the matter settled quickly.
The Middle District of Tennessee Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. ordered Jarrett and Global Wrestling Entertainment meets with Anthem Sports in a settlement conference next month and cancelled the scheduled hearing in September. The originally scheduled hearing date was made in order to set up a new trial date for the ongoing lawsuit.
Previously, the legal team for Jeff Jarrett requested a settlement conference for both sides to come to the table to work out a deal offering any time between September 1 and September 10. Anthem’s side responded that Ed Nordholm wouldn’t be available for that time period, but their side reportedly agreed to a settlement conference after the currently scheduled hearing on September 11 in Nashville, Tennessee, which will then set up a new trial date.
However, Judge Crenshaw later cancelled the Sept. 11 hearing and instructed both sides to settle the matter. Beforehand, both sides were unable to settle the legal dispute, which sparked the initial trial that was later ruled a mistrial. Judge Crenshaw ruled on July 30 that it was a mistrial due to “the Court’s failure to instruct on comparative negligence; the identity of the wrong entity in the verdict form on the counterfeiting claim; improper comments by Defendant’s counsel in opening statements; and improper statements by Plaintiffs’ counsel in closing arguments, all of which were discussed in detail in the Court’s oral ruling.”
