Attorneys for Mark Hunt have filed their opposition brief to Zuffa, Dana White and Brock Lesnar’s Motion to Dismiss his First Amended Complaint. In the brief, they cite specific instances in which they addressed the court’s concerns regarding their allegations.
The brief specifically claims that it has provided adequate information on damages and a proximate cause to go forward with its Civil RICO claim.
Plaintiffs Opposition to MTD FAC by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Hunt addresses the court’s concerns with respect to the Civil RICO claim alleged by Hunt. They rely on a case, Mendoza vs. Zirkle Fruit, Co., in which the defendants in that case sought to manipulate the work force by hiring undocumented laborers to depress wages of documented workers. In this case, Hunt’s lawyers argue that the UFC and White wrongfully manipulated the market to depress wages of clean fighters by hiring doping fighters.
In its Opposition Brief, Hunt argues it has outlined the scheme and articulated his damages in his FAC #UFC #sportslaw pic.twitter.com/oYIXmJ3f17
— Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) July 19, 2017
They also cite the Mendoza case to dispel the Defendants’ argument that there could be other plausible proximate causation for Hunt’s alleged damages. They claim Mendoza did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ civil RICO claims although there were alternative theories to the damages from the plaintiffs. Thus, as Hunt relies on Mendoza, the Court cannot dismiss Hunt’s civil RICO claim solely because there are alternative or intervening causes for Hunt’s financial losses.
Also in his brief, regarding his Breach of Contract claim, Hunt argues the clause in the New Zealander’s contract which states that Zuffa shall be bound by the rules and regulations of the Athletic Commission was breached. In the first hearing on dismissing the original complaint, the Court questioned what specific part of the contract Hunt alleged was breach as it was not clear to the Court from the original complaint.
Payout Perspective:
We detailed the Court hearing and how the Judge was skeptical about Hunt’s claims. We shall see if the arguments supplied in this Opposition Brief persuades the Court that the First Amended Complaint has changed. In this brief, Hunt argues that it should be entitled to a shot at discovery, which is being challenged in a different motion. It also requests another shot at amending the complaint if the Court determines the allegations are not sufficient. We shall see how that goes. .
Leave a Reply