Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court of Connecticut dismissed a portion of the claims of several WWE wrestlers which claimed the company knew or should have known about head injuries. Only one claim by two plaintiffs remains.
In a lengthy opinion, the court dismissed the lawsuits of William Albert “Billy Jack” Haynes III, “Big” Russ McCullough, Ryan Sakoda and Matthew R. Weise. However, one claim in the lawsuit of Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso remain with respect to “fraudulent omission” stemming from information post-2005. The claim was whether the “WWE became aware of and failed to disclose to its wrestlers information concerning a link between repeated head trauma and permanent degenerative neurological conditions as well as specialized knowledge concerning the possibility that its wrestlers could be exposed to a greater risk for such conditions.”
The former wrestlers had filed lawsuits in different jurisdictions but the WWE filed motions to transfer the venue to Connecticut and were granted the relief each time. Once the lawsuits were transferred to Connecticut, the state of the headquarters of World Wrestling Entertainment, the company filed motions to dismiss the wrestler’s complaints citing that they were time-barred by the applicable Connecticut statutes of limitations and repose.
The court dismissed the wrestlers’ negligence counts under Connecticut law. It also dismissed misrepresentation and fraudulent deceit claims as the plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity any false representation by WWE. In addition, the fraudulent concealment and medical monitoring claims were also dismissed. However, the court did not dismiss the “fraudulent omission” claims by Singleton and LoGrasso.
Notably, the plaintiffs argued that their case was similar to that of NHL players that brought a concussion lawsuit against the league. In that case, the judge allowed a “fraudulent omission” claim under similar circumstances.
The court indicated that the facts concerning the “fraudulent omission” claim would proceed as both wrestlers were active in the WWE on or after 2005. The plaintiffs will still need to establish facts after more discovery occurs in the lawsuit.
Payout Perspective:
The plaintiffs might appeal although the court opinion was quite thorough. The strategy to move the lawsuits to Connecticut and rely on Connecticut law worked in the WWE’s favor. Every wrestler, except for Haynes had a forum selection clause in their contract which made the decision easier to transfer the cases. We saw a similar situation in the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit where the fighters were sent to Las Vegas from San Jose due in part to the forum selection clauses in the contracts.
The WWE is left with a narrow cause of action against it which may mean the possibility of a settlement. Of course, the court seems to leave open the possibility that after further discovery occurs, if the plaintiffs cannot establish facts for its case, a motion for summary judgment may be filed by the WWE. We will keep you posted.
Leave a Reply