Legal Tensions Escalate in DraftKings vs. Mike Hermalyn Dispute

DraftKings’ Motion to Strike

DraftKings recently filed a motion to strike certain elements from Hermalyn’s response to the company’s initial complaint.

The sports betting giant argued that Hermalyn’s accusations—particularly those concerning a business feud with Fanatics and alleged misconduct by CEO Jason Robins—were irrelevant to the core issues of the lawsuit.

In a defense, Hermalyn countered DraftKings’ motion by elaborating on the alleged role of Robins in this legal battle. According to Hermalyn’s response, Robins made statements indicating a desire to “ruin” Hermalyn both personally and professionally, aiming to end his career in the industry.

This, Hermalyn argues, is central to his defense, highlighting the personal stakes involved in the lawsuit.

Emotional Dimensions and Strategic Implications

The documents reveal that Robins was “deeply wounded” by Hermalyn’s departure to Fanatics, suggesting that emotional factors may be influencing the company’s legal strategy. Hermalyn’s legal team insists that these details are essential to understanding the motivations behind DraftKings’ aggressive legal posture.

The matter is currently under consideration by the judge, who must weigh the arguments from both sides regarding the motion to strike.

Simultaneously, the First Circuit Court of Appeals is evaluating Hermalyn’s appeal of a temporary injunction that restricts his activities at Fanatics. DraftKings has argued that oral arguments in the appeal are unnecessary, indicating their confidence in the written submissions.

Hermalyn’s filing also argues that there is no undue prejudice towards DraftKings from the contested elements of his response, challenging the basis of their motion to strike. He contends that DraftKings has not demonstrated the necessary level of evidence required to justify removing parts of his defense brief.