• 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Your email address will not be published.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

Opetaia fires back at IBF in opposition to MTD

UFC 331 Payout Perspective

UFC 331 attendance, gate and bonuses

Scott Coker is back with Ki MMA

TKO owns this weekend

Appeals Court sets date for oral argument in Zuffa appeal

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

From a legal opinion denying Wladimir Klitschko an injunction in his case against the IBF in 2005. #Boxing

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Samantha Holloway is staying hopeful about the potential of NBA expansion and the return of the SuperSonics even as the process has dragged on.

Opetaia fires back at IBF in opposition to MTD #boxing #zuffa #zuffaboxing https://mmapayout.com/2026/09/29/opetaia-fires-back-at-ibf-in-opposition-to-mtd/

Wait a second, Volpe starting tonight but Jazz is not?

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

The timing of mixing up the Atlanta Hawks with the Iowa Hawkeyes after just voting on the "Save College Sports" act is kinda hilarious

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