In February of last year, it was reported that TNA Wrestling star Ryan Nemeth filed a lawsuit against AEW, its president, Tony Khan, and WWE star CM Punk.
The lawsuit included allegations of assault, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional interference with prospective advantage. At that time, AEW moved to compel the lawsuit into arbitration. In April 2025, Nemeth voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit and agreed to enter arbitration.
According to POST Wrestling, on June 5, AEW filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In this petition, they accused Nemeth of misrepresenting and misleading them regarding his legal dispute. The petition seeks to compel Nemeth to arbitrate the dispute at a JAMS administrative office located nearest to Duval County, Florida, with the arbitration to be governed by Florida law.
AEW also claims that after Nemeth agreed to move to arbitration, he filed a demand for arbitration with a JAMS office in Orange County, California, intending for it to be adjudicated under the California Labor Code. The petition states that Nemeth included several “unsupported claims” in his demand.
JAMS, which is a private organization that facilitates arbitration, is the designated company in AEW’s contracts for resolving disputes. AEW noted that JAMS presented both parties with a list of 10 potential arbitrators, of which six are located in California, three in Florida, and one in New York.
Both sides have the ability to strike two options and rank the rest in order of preference. AEW argues that the greater number of California offices than Florida offices favors Nemeth and that conducting arbitration in California violates the express terms of the agreement.
Additionally, AEW and Khan filed a separate motion on Tuesday seeking to seal confidential information related to the contracts Nemeth signed between 2021 and 2023. They claim these documents contain “sensitive, confidential, and proprietary information” belonging to the petitioners, including details about their business practices, internal economic structures, compensation agreements, and intellectual property.
