Mark Hunt’s attorneys have responded to Zuffa and Dana White’s Opposition to its request to supplement its First Amended Complaint.
Hunt argues that the standard for supplementing is quite liberal to allow for “complete relief in one action.” Hunt’s attorneys state that the alternative would be for Hunt to file a separate complaint which he infers would be duplicitous and a waste.
The central argument from Defendants according to Hunt is that the additional facts would be “futile” to the lawsuit. Hunt points to its claim for the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and amended breach of contract claim which survived the original motion to dismiss. They note that the fight camp damages estimated at $100,000 and lost fight purse would directly be attributed to the breach of contract claim.
Reply to Motion to Supplement – Hunt by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Payout Perspective:
As we previously noted, Brock Lesnar, also a party to this lawsuit, has not responded to this motion. The Reply Brief submitted by Hunt stresses the liberal nature in which the rules allow for supplementing the lawsuit with additional information. While Zuffa and White argued that the supplementation is pure surplusage, Hunt argues that the supplemental information related to his removal from UFC Fight Night 121 contributes to his original claims. It’s likely we’ll see the decision of this motion prior to the Motion to Dismiss Hunt’s First Amended Complaint.
Leave a Reply