A San Diego Superior Court judge has ruled against Fernando Tatis Jr. in his push to unwind the future-earnings deal that he signed as an 18-year-old in the Dominican Republic.
Judge Judy Bae on Friday confirmed her tentative ruling that Tatis’ legal challenge came too late, according to Courthouse News Service. The Padres star now owes the Big League Advance Fund just under $3.74 million, a total that reflects the money he owed when he stopped making payments since the end of 2023, interest, attorney fees and additional costs.
Tatis said on Saturday that he planned to appeal.
“Oh, it’s definitely not over,” he said.
Tatis deferred additional comment to his legal team, which could not be reached.
Big League Advance gave Tatis $2 million in October 2017 in exchange for 10% of his future earnings. The 14-year, $340 million deal that Tatis signed in February 2021 means Big League Advance is due $34 million.
Tatis did not sign the contract in California, but was seeking legal recourse here because of the state’s consumer protection laws.
Tatis’ legal team has argued that Big League Advance is an unlicensed lender issuing illegal loans and using manipulative and unlawful tactics to lure teenagers into investment deals. The terms of that deal included an agreement to voluntarily submit to arbitration proceedings. Tatis filed his lawsuit in San Diego nearly a year after arbitration began, a BLA attorney told Courthouse News Service.
Tatis said in a June 2025 statement that he was “fighting this battle not just for myself but for everyone still chasing their dream and hoping to provide a better life for their family.”
“I want to help protect those young players who don’t yet know how to protect themselves from these predatory lenders and illegal financial schemes — kids’ focus should be on their passion for baseball, not dodging shady business deals,” he said
In the tentative ruling confirmed on Friday, Bae wrote that a “party challenging the legality of the entire contract must raise such challenges before arbitration proceedings begin.” Bae’s ruling, however, sided with Tatis’ claim that California law was applicable despite Tatis signing the contract overseas with a company based in Delaware.
“Delaware’s interest in this dispute is minimal, because the agreement was negotiated in the Dominican Republic and signed there,” Bae wrote. “Additionally, because Tatis made payments on the Player Agreement as a player for the San Diego Padres, the Player Agreement was largely performed in California. Because applying Delaware law would undermine a fundamental California public policy, applying the Delaware choice of law provision would be contrary to the public policy of this state.”
“When you’re dealing with an illegal contract, it can and should be reviewed,” Tatis’s attorney, Maurice Mitts, said in Friday’s proceedings, according to Courthouse News Service. “The court has an independent obligation to review illegal contracts so long as it was raised before the arbitrator.”
