The UFC, Dana White and Brock Lesnar have filed a Motion to Dismiss to Mark Hunt’s First Amended Complaint. According to Lesnar’s Motion to Dismiss, all but one of Hunt’s original causes of action in his Complaint were dismissed with the Court allowing Hunt leave to amend. The Defendants (collectively the UFC, White and Lesnar) have filed a Motion to Dismiss Hunt’s amended lawsuit.
Both motions liberally cite the transcript of the May 22nd hearing on their original Motion to Dismiss.
Zuffa Mtd Fac by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Bolstered by these comments Defendants continue to pick at Hunt’s RICO claim in the FAC which included more details about Hunt’s purported injuries:
Hunt has conjured up a veritable smorgasbord of alleged injuries in the hopes that one might qualify as the requisite concrete financial loss necessary to state a RICO claim. None do.
The argument is the old claim that a plaintiffs’ allegations do not match up with their claimed damages. Here, Hunt’s claims that he lost out on sponsorship and appearance deals as well as lost profits from his own clothing brand are speculative at best and cannot be claimed here under a theory from his RICO allegations nor his tort-based (physical injury) causes of action.
Moreover, Zuffa claims that Hunt cannot show a logical correlation between what has happened in his case and the UFC. Zuffa states that Hunt cannot show the requisite proximate clause to state his RICO claim.
Zuffa cite a case which outlines the reason:
This means there must be “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged. A link that is too remote, purely contingent, or indirect is insufficient.”
Defendants claim that Hunt’s claimed damages are too attenuated to be claimed to be a loss related to a civil RICO claim.
Finally, they also claim that Hunt cannot prove the underlying predicate offenses required of a civil RICO violation.
Lesnar’s Mtd Fac by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Lesnar’s Motion meticulously goes through each claim of Hunt but in more detail as it pertains to the current WWE performer. Notably, Lesnar’s motion argues that Hunt had signed on to the bout with Lesnar and assumed the risk in signing on to fight Lesnar and therefore cannot argue damages as a result from his UFC 200 fight.
At the Court hearing, Howard Jacobs, Lesnar’s lawyer, stressed the fact that Hunt cannot prove damages for a civil RICO claim. The distinguishing factor is that Hunt claims business and reputational damages. These are not recognized damages under RICO claims the Defendants. Moreover, Jacobs states that Hunt’s claim is a “prime example of overenthusiastic use of RICO…”
Reading throught the Court transcript, Hunt’s lawyer flails at the Court’s questioning of their RICO claims as well as whether or not Hunt was claiming that the bout agreement Hunt signed was invalid. Hunt’s lawyer didn’t seem to know or did not want to admit that it was some type of strategy.
Payout Perspective:
The first three pages of Lesnar’s motion are instructive in a step-by-step analysis of the differences between Hunt’s original complaint and his First Amended Complaint. While there are more facts provided in Hunt’s First Amended Complaint, the Defendants argue that the information provided by Plaintiffs do not help his claims.
Lesnar’s Motion to Dismiss attached the Court transcript from the May 22nd as an exhibit. The Court complemented the parties on their briefing and due to time restraints allowed 10 minutes for each party to argue before the Court. The Court grilled Hunt for about 15 minutes during the hearing about their Complaint. To be honest, this could be bad news for Hunt. Then again, it might be dependent on how the Court looks at the First Amended Complaint and this new Motion to Dismiss.
MMA Payout will have more on this. Stay tuned.
Leave a Reply