Last week, Mark Hunt filed his Opening Brief in his appeal from the dismissal of his lawsuit against Zuffa.
As you may recall, Hunt filed a lawsuit in January 2017 against Zuffa, Dana White and Brock Lesnar after he lost to Lesnar at UFC 200 and it was discovered that the WWE Champ failed a drug test. As the case progressed, White and Lesnar were dismissed from the lawsuit.
Hunt contends that the UFC “knowingly caused Hunt to fight cheating fighters who were later revealed to have been doping prior to the bouts.” As a result of his loss to Lesnar, Hunt argued that he lost appearance engagements which would have netted him “in excess of $90,000.00” as a result of his loss to Lesnar. He also claimed diminishment of his brand due to the loss.
Mark Hunt Opening Brief by MMA Payout on Scribd
The trial court dismissed all but one of Hunt’s claims – the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It subsequently dismissed the lawsuit claiming that Hunt’s claims for damages were consequential and therefore unrecoverable under terms of his agreement with UFC and Nevada law.
The Order dismissing the case is here and below.
Hunt’s attorneys premise their argument on the fact that the fighter’s claims were dismissed prematurely and that his breach of contract claim was mischaracterized as “consequential” damages which cannot be recouped per his contract.
Hunt claims that the mischaracterization of Hunt’s damages as “consequential” was in error. Under the terms of Hunt’s contract, “consequential” damages are barred. Hunt argues that the Court mischaracterized the damages claimed by Hunt as “consequential” rather than “reliance” damages. Hunt argues that his damages for loss he is claiming relates to money lost in reliance that his fight against Lesnar was against an opponent that was not doping. Consequential damages are usually defined as damages that go beyond the contract itself and into the actions that flow from the failure to fulfill the contract. While one might argue that the damages definition is semantics, the trial court dismissed Hunt’s claims based on his bout agreement and promotional contract with Zuffa which precludes such damages.
Hunt argues throughout his appeal brief that the lawsuit was dismissed prematurely before discovery and the Court should have, at least, allowed the complaint to be litigated before an eventual Motion for Summary Judgment. According to the standard for a federal complaint, the Court “does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” in support of plaintiff’s claims.
The appeal points to several instances in which Hunt believes that the trial court should have allowed discovery in this case so that the Court would be able to determine the veracity of his claims. Without exploring the evidence, he could not go forward with the case. The trial court claimed that his allegations (except for one) was sufficient as pled and should be dismissed based on the standard for bringing a viable lawsuit before the court.
In the appeal, Hunt argues that he “reasonably relied on the contractual and verbal promises made to him by UFC and White (and the rules and regulation of the NAC and other regulatory bodies), and as a result was robbed of his money, his time, and his reputation as atop fighter in the UFC.” A footnote in the brief also points to the allegation that the UFC could have exercised measures to ensure that Lesnar was not doping, but decided against it.
Hunt’s Battery Claim against Lesnar
One of the more interesting legal issues in Hunt’s appeal is the battery claim against Lesnar. Hunt claims that the District Court stated he “implicitly consented to fighting a doping Lesnar by concluding…that a fighter’s use of prohibited substances to gain a competitive advantage over his adversary is within the “range of ordinary activity involved in the sport.””
As claimed by Hunt’s attorney, “[t]his holding extends “assumption of the risk” doctrine beyond all reasonable bounds.”
“The District Court found, relying on a single case from California, that a sporting event participant consent to any resulting injuries—even those caused by another participant’s flagrant and intentional violation of the rules of the sport—so long as the aggressor’s conduct does not fall “totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport[.]” As a result, the trial court dismissed Hunt’s battery claim.
That California case alluded to, Avila v. Citrus Community College District, a baseball batter claimed that the pitcher intentionally threw a beanball which hit him in the head. The Court held that the pitch “is an inherent risk of baseball.” The trial court went on to rationalize that, an “athlete does not assume the risk of a co-participant’s intentional or reckless conduct ‘totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport’” The Court concluded that the pitcher’s intentional throw did not fall outside of this range. Similarly, they did not believe that Lesnar did anything outside the bounds of a normal, regulated MMA fight. The Court stated that Hunt did not allege that Lesnar’s conduct during the bout “was somehow atypical.” They gave the example of throwing Hunt out of the Octagon or using “packed gloves.”
Thus, the trial court normalized the use of PED-use and inferred something more had to happen for the court to decipher it was outside of the inherent risk of MMA.
Hunt claimed that if it was allowed to proceed, they would have retained an expert to report on the “enhanced risks” of fighting a doping fighter versus a non-doping fighter. Second, Hunt consented to fighting only a “clean” Lesnar. Finally, Hunt claims that it is an issue of fact as to whether Lesnar’s use of prohibited substances falls outside the range of activity for MMA and cannot be dismissed as a matter of law.
Payout Perspective:
There is a lot of legal procedural issues to unpack in Hunt’s appeal which center around whether the trial court should have allowed Hunt to conduct more discovery to find factual issues to support his lawsuit. As a matter of law, Zuffa will argue that he could not survive the requirements and should not be allowed to go on a “fishing expedition” and require time, cost and expense of Zuffa resources if they do not have viable claims. I am most interested with respect to Hunt’s appeal related to his claim for battery because there seems to be an interesting point of law related to the bounds of inherent risk in sport that may be bigger than just this lawsuit. MMA Payout will keep you posted.
Order on Motion to Dismiss by MMA Payout on Scribd
Leave a Reply