In a 28-page order filed on Thursday, the United States District Court of Nevada dismissed all but one of UFC fighter Mark Hunt’s claims in his lawsuit alleging among its claims breach of contract, fraud and RICO Violations against the UFC.
The Order dismissed White and Lesnar in the lawsuit leaving just the UFC as the lone defendant. For background of the case, you can go here.
An analysis of the Motion to Dismiss hearing is here.
Order on Motion to Dismiss by on Scribd
The Court had allowed Hunt the right to amend his Complaint to include further details supporting his claims under RICO Act violations and fraud. However, the Court was not persuaded by Hunt’s amended and supplemental complaint.
In total, 9 out of the 10 claims in Hunt’s lawsuit were dismissed.
The Court determined that Hunt’s claims under the state and federal RICO statutes failed because either the allegations were “non-cognizable damages or failed to plead facts to show” a proximate cause to his financial losses.
The Court specifically took aim at Hunt’s loss to Lesnar at UFC 200. The Court did not agree with Hunt that due to his loss to Lesnar, it proximately caused ancillary injuries to Hunt including cancelled promotional events post-UFC 200 costing him over $90,000 in appearance fees, a “dip” in his social media popularity and diminished advertising fees as well as a loss of licensing fees and sales for his personal clothing brand. Here, the Court could not side with Hunt and believed that his RICO allegations failed for lack of proximate cause as they were “fatally speculative.”
In response to Hunt’s arguments that it could introduce expert testimony at a later stage of litigation to show the causation, the Court cited to precedent which stated that “it does not mean that the mere possibility of expert testimony down the line can rehabilitate allegations that insufficiently establish proximate causation.” Moreover, the Court concludes that his claims cannot prove that Hunt would have beaten Lesnar if he was not doping.
As for the allegations related to White and the UFC, the Court infers that Hunt relates his claim to the removal of his fight from UFC Fight Night 121 (“referred to as UFC 121 in the order”) after he wrote an article claiming to suffer from slurred speech and other maladies he attributes to fighting. The Court found fatal defects in the pleading as this was the portion of his claim in his Supplemental Complaint. But he did not provide sufficient notice to the defendants. Nevertheless, the Court dismissed the claim as it believed that the costs he attributed to training camp as not financial losses that do not constitute damage to “tangible property” under the RICO statute.
The lack of proximate cause also proved fatal for Hunt’s claims against White for alleged “aiding and abetting” and common law fraud. Here again the Court refers to the lack of evidence linking White’s representations including the claim Lesnar was being tested by USADA with the alleged doping scheme.
The Court also dismissed Hunt’s breach of contract claim because he was paid for his fight against Lesnar at UFC 200. In addition, the Court states that since Hunt’s damages relate to items that occurred after his loss, and not his contracted pay, the claim must be dismissed.
The Court determined that Hunt’s unjust enrichment claim must also fail because it stems from his contract with the UFC. He received what he was owed in the contract and there is no compensation for Hunt’s perception that his services exceeded the scope of the contract.
Hunt’s battery and aiding and abetting claims fail because he consented to the fight with Lesnar. Moreover, there was no evidence that Lesnar did anything outside “the range of the ordinary activity,” in an MMA bout. The Court cites to a California case in which a pitcher intentionally threw a pitch at a batter’s head which injured the batter. The Court sided with the pitcher stating that while throwing at a batter’s head is “forbidden by the rules of baseball,” it “is an inherent risk of baseball.” By analogy, the Court states that even though Lesnar tested positive for a performance enhancing drug, there was no evidence submitted which revealed that he did something outside the scope of an MMA bout. Thus, there is no battery claim against Lesnar.
Finally, the civil conspiracy claims must fail because the Court dismissed Hunt’s fraud and battery claims. Since the underlying claims were dismissed, there cannot be a conspiracy claim.
The Court also authorized the remaining parties (i.e., UFC and Hunt) to attend a settlement conference. In all likelihood, the parties will settle.
Payout Perspective:
In all likelihood, this case will be over after the settlement conference. Cases for breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contract have a low likelihood of victory for the plaintiff. Based on the Court’s opinion which dismissed Hunt’s case for lack of proximate cause to his claims, it would only be a matter of time before Hunt’s last claim is dismissed. This is an unfortunate result for Hunt. While it’s clear that the allegations were tied together by a thread, it’s clear that he was tired of being put in the Octagon with opponents that failed drug tests. While Hunt may have had several good points in his lawsuit, the Court did not find anything of legal substance to keep the case afloat. MMA Payout will keep you posted if there would be an appeal.
Leave a Reply