Mark Hunt’s lawsuit against Zuffa has ended as a federal court in Nevada dismissed the remaining cause of action for claiming a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contract.
The meat of Hunt’s lawsuit, which spanned 10 causes of action and included Brock Lesnar and Dana White was dismissed this past spring as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court ruling siding with the opinion of the trial court that Hunt’s claims lacked factual merit.
There was no further opinion on the dismissal of Hunt’s last claim.
Final Judgment by Jason Cruz on Scribd
Payout Perspective:
As we’ve analyzed Hunt’s lawsuit, it was apparent that while he may have had a viable claim, he could not prove damages for the claim. Obviously, the need to have a viable, legal claim for damages is a part of winning in court. And, Hunt just could not prove it. His claims for loss were remote according to the court. It does not necessarily mean that his claims that the UFC inability to prevent Lesnar from fighting while using an alleged PED didn’t harm Hunt, it just didn’t in a way which the New Zealander could prove in court. Moreover, the court’s opinion focused on the fact that there was nothing unusual in which Lesnar harmed Hunt in the Octagon. While this may sound odd, the court relies on prior case law where the standard for determining personal injuries outside the scope of the sport is premised upon whether the alleged injury was something related to the sport (e.g., a California court found it foreseeable that a baseball player could be injured by a pitcher throwing a baseball at a batter’s head).
It didn’t appear that Hunt’s lawyers put up much of a fight after 9 out of his 10 claims were dismissed. Rather, it seemed that the lawsuit was disregarded after the appellate court sided with Zuffa.
Leave a Reply