• 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Your email address will not be published.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

Court moves Ortiz case to arbitration

Dominance responds to Motion to Compel

Pac-May II set for September

Judge hears arguments in Golden Boy TRO request

Golden Boy files Reply Brief in support of TRO

Ortiz files opposition to TRO

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Wolfe downgrades TKO after strong rally

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

For the first time, here's a link to "Private Equity in College Sports," written by @SunealBedi, John Holden and myself, and forthcoming in Volume 111 of @MinnesotaLawRev:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6349318

Failed MMA fighter, but successful plumber and drafter of a cut and paste version of the mUhammAD aLi act takes over of Homeland Security

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Kristi, you’re fired!

(Yes, I had this ready)

Load More

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