Tatís strikes out in fight against contract signed as a teen

SAN DIEGO (CN) — San Diego Padres star Fernando Tatís Jr. swung too late in the latest court action he’s taken against the Big League Advance Fund, according to a San Diego Superior Court judge.

Tatís’ attorneys argued before Judge Judy Bae on Friday morning that the court should vacate an arbitration order requiring him to pay almost $4 million to the Big League Advance Fund. However, Bae confirmed her tentative ruling that denied the 27-year-old MLB slugger’s bid.

The case revolves around a 2017 contract Tatís signed with Big League Advance when he was an 18-year-old living in the Dominican Republic. In it, he agreed to a $2 million upfront payment from BLA in exchange for 10% of his annual professional baseball earnings for 25 years if he reached the major leagues.

In 2021, the Padres signed Tatís to a 14-year contract worth $340 million, leaving him on the hook for $34 million owed to the BLA Fund. However, he stopped making payments to BLA in 2024.

Tatís contends that his contract with the BLA Fund is void under California Financing Law. In his complaint, filed in June 2025, he says he was rushed through the BLA contract as a youth with limited financial sophistication.

But Bae said his challenge was made too late.

“Based on this California Supreme Court precedent, a party challenging the legality of the entire contract must raise such challenges before arbitration proceedings begin,” she wrote.

Maurice Mitts, a Philadelphia-based attorney representing Tatís, told Courthouse News he will most likely appeal Bae’s ruling.

The BLA Fund began arbitration proceedings against Tatís in September 2024 and won an arbitration award about a year later. Tatís was ordered to pay the BLA Fund $3,230,837, plus $240,515 in interest, $250,000 in attorney fees and $14,349 in additional costs for grand total of about $3.74 million.

Contrary to the ruling, Mitts argued the California Financing Law challenge was raised as a defense in their court briefings.

“When you’re dealing with an illegal contract, it can and should be reviewed,” Mitts told the court. “The court has an independent obligation to review illegal contracts so long as it was raised before the arbitrator.”

Mitts also said courts shouldn’t provide relief to an entity that’s engaged in illegal or fraudulent conduct. Tatís insists that BLA operates as an unlicensed financial lender in violation of California law. Founded in 2016 by former MLB pitcher Michael Schwimer, BLA says it’s not a loan, but rather an investment into an athlete’s career.

“They persist in their defiance of the Legislature,” Mitts told the court. “Your honor has already found all the requisites to show the illegality of this conduct.”

In her ruling, Bae sided with Tatís’ claim that California law was applicable and that the state had a greater interest in resolving the dispute than Delaware, where BLA is incorporated.

“They’re hoping you will ignore what actually happened and give credence to the artifice they’ve created to give domicile to these processes,” Mitts told the Bae. “That’s an affront to this court.”

BLA attempted to engineer the contract in a way that would circumvent California law, he argued.

“What they tried to do was to get this to be litigated in private court in a foreign jurisdiction with a judge from that jurisdiction so at every turn they were trying to have it be somebody who wouldn’t actually know the law of California,” Mitts told Courthouse News outside of the courtroom. “If you look at the law, California is incredibly detailed and protective on this, because you don’t want consumers exposed to these kinds of loan shark deals.”

Attorney Michael Attanasio, representing BLA, accused the plaintiffs of sandbagging after losing in arbitration.

“Mr. Tatís willingly accepted the jurisdiction of the arbitration process,” he said. “He did not raise illegality at that time. The defense in the BLA side filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Mr. Tatís, through experienced counsel, filed an opposition to that motion on the pleadings. He did not raise illegality.”

It was nearly a year after arbitration began that Tatís filed a lawsuit seeking relief in San Diego, Attanasio said.