Daniel Kinahan facing €2m bill after 'default' entered in California civil case

Kinahan is being sued in the US after the boxing company he founded, MTK Global, allegedly poached Mexican boxer JoJo Diaz from Heredia Boxing Management.

A ‘default’ was officially entered in the case against Kinahan yesterday after he failed to respond to, or enter a defence for himself, against claims, including those of criminality, contained in the civil case.

The latest development in the legal case means the exiled drug lord is now just 45 days away from having a full default judgement issued against him by Heredia – who are understood to be seeking up to US$2 million (€1.8 million) in damages against him.

Heredia’s lawyer Eric Montalvo has previously vowed he will seek to have Kinahan’s assets in his Dubai bolthole frozen to pay off the judgement.

Kinahan continues to live a life of luxury in Dubai while a large number of his criminal associates serve lengthy sentences in Ireland.

Legal documents obtained by the Sunday World from the United States District Court for the Central District of California show the default was entered on Wednesday– a day after it was officially sought by Heredia’s lawyers Rajan Dhungana and Mr Montalvo.

Entering the official default, deputy court clerk Yvette Louis wrote: “It, appearing from the records in the above−entitled action that summons has been served upon the defendant(s) named below and it further appearing from the affidavit of counsel for Plaintiff … that each of the below defendants have failed to plead or otherwise defend in said action as directed in said Summons and as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

“Now, therefore, on request of counsel, the default of each of the following named defendant(s) is hereby entered: Daniel Kinahan.”

Similarly, a separate default was officially entered against MTK Global Sports Management, LLC, who were also served by newspaper publication in Dubai at the same time as Kinahan.

In legal documents filed by lawyer and former marine Mr Montalvo on behalf of Heredia Boxing Management (HBM) last year, he stated that the company had a five-year contract to represent Mr Diaz which expired in 2022.

The suit alleged MTK lured Mr Diaz away by offering him a $100,000 advance on his next prize purse which “essentially caused Mr Diaz to mortgage his future away.”

The papers also alleged MTK funded a campaign against Heredia in an effort to get it to release Mr Diaz as a client.

This included the sending of “threatening” letters and social media posts smearing Heredia.

The suit further alleged Kinahan still controls MTK, and uses fights and its fighters to launder money from his international drugs trafficking operations.

Furthermore, it accused MTK and Kinahan of breaching the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations (Rico) Act by using money derived from organised crime activity.

The Rico Act was introduced by the federal government to tackle organised crime, but it can also be used in civil suits.

On Tuesday of this week, lawyers Montalvo and Dhungana officially applied for defaults to be entered in the case against Kinahan and MTK Global Sports Management LLC.

In the application for a default against Kinahan, the lawyers wrote: “Plaintiff Moses Heredia respectfully requests that the clerk enter a default against defendant Daniel Kinahan on the ground that defendant Daniel Kinahan has failed to appear or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint within the time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure..

“Plaintiff Moses Heredia filed his second amended complaint against, inter alia, defendant Daniel Kinahan on July 28, 2021.

“The summons was issued on August 5, 2021.

“Defendant Daniel Kinahan was served with the Summons and Second Amended Complaint on October 6, 2021.

“Proof of service on Defendant Daniel Kinahan was filed with the Court on January 12, 2022.

“Defendant Daniel Kinahan did not answer or otherwise defend the Second Amended Complaint within the 21-day time frame set forth.

“Neither Plaintiff nor the Court has granted Defendant Daniel Kinahan any extension of time to answer or otherwise defend the Second Amended Complaint.

“Plaintiff does not believe that defendant Daniel Kinahan is an infant or incompetent person or in the military or otherwise covered by the Service Members Civil Relief Act.”

A similar application was sought and granted against MTK Global Sports Management, LLC.

The ‘2022 California Rules of Court,’ state that when a default is entered, the party who requested the entry of default must obtain a default judgment against the defaulting party within 45 days after the default was entered, unless the court has granted an extension of time.

“The court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed if that party fails to obtain entry of judgment against a defaulting party or to request an extension of time to apply for a default judgment within that time.”

Kinahan is said to be under increasing pressure in the Middle East after a number of ex-pat criminals from across the world were arrested in Dubai.

Gardai are continuing to investigate Kinahan in connection with a range of offences linked to organised crime.

In recent months, the exiled mobster has posed for photographs with a number of boxers and fighters in the Emirate State.

Kinahan posed with MTK fighters Darren Till, Sunny Edwards and Lee McGregor - none of whom are involved in crime - in a series of snaps which appeared on social media.

MTK has previously responded to the claims against it, in the Heredia lawsuit, through the company’s US arm.

It denied Kinahan was a noted member of the notorious Kinahan cartel or that he oversees the company's operations.

The filing went on to say MTK Global USA "lacked sufficient knowledge or information" to admit or deny claims made by Heredia that the Kinahan cartel was allegedly responsible for several murders, drug trafficking and money laundering, and that Daniel Kinahan had fled Ireland after the Regency attack and was now living in Dubai.

MTK Global US said that, on the basis of this lack of knowledge, it was denying each allegation.

The company also denied claims it had engaged in racketeering and denied it ever transacted in or held funds directly or indirectly derived from racketeering activity.