• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Parties agreed to extend time for UFC, White to answer Mark Hunt lawsuit

February 6, 2017 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

We will have to wait until the end of the month to see the response the UFC and Dana White will provide to Mark Hunt’s lawsuit.  The parties agreed to extend the time for the UFC and White to respond according to a legal filing on Friday.

According to the stipulation, the UFC and White will provide a joint response to the lawsuit filed by Hunt last month.  The UFC Heavyweight sued the company, White and Brock Lesnar as it relates to his fight at UFC 200 this past July.  Among the claims, filed in federal court in Nevada, breach of contract, RICO violations and negligence.

The stipulation is below.  The UFC and White has until February 28, 2017 to provide a response.

Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

The stipulation notes that White had yet to be personally served (a requisite in lawsuits), but will accept service based on his attorneys receiving the lawsuit.  It also notes that the UFC and White will share one response.  This means that Lesnar will need his own attorneys and has yet to respond.

Payout Perspective:

The stipulation only applies to the UFC and White which means that Lesnar has until tomorrow to respond if he was personally served the lawsuit.  Lesnar could seek an extension to respond as well.  Note, the term “respond” as the UFC and White may file a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit.  The rules state that they can do this prior to filing an Answer.  You can expect this to happen and the extension of time may provide them more time to do this.  In the alternative, the extra time may mean they want to either negotiate with Hunt and/or file a response with counterclaims.

Filed Under: Hunt v. Zuffa, legal, UFC, Zuffa

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Conor McGregor returns July 11th

Keane’s attorneys fire back at Top Rank based on undiscovered evidence

White writes letter to Trump requesting change to law

UFC Freedom 250 kits revealed

Dominance responds to Plaintiffs’ Fee Request

Senate makes mockery of Ali Act hearing

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Pistons wyd

Agree with whole interaction 👍🏾

BaseballHistoryNut @nut_history

A fan to PCA: you suck

PCA: you suck my f**king d**k bit*h

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Been a big supporter of his, but I’ve seen enough. Heads need to roll to answer for the way this team is performing.

Fire Dan Wilson.

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

I don’t disagree with the criticism of the quality of the fights here but the amount of time spent rehashing old comments from Rousey & Carano in a sport where open bigots, accused rapist & friends of war criminals & cartel bosses regularly get top billing seems overboard.

One of my first big gets

K-Dub @MrKdub

Modern collectors will NEVER understand this… #TheHobby

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports