Zuffa and Dana White have filed their answering brief in the appeal of Mark Hunt. As you may recall, Hunt filed a lawsuit against the UFC, Dana White and Brock Lesnar in January 2017 accusing the promotion of a conspiracy allowing fighters on PEDs to compete in the UFC.
Zuffa Answering Brief by MMA Payout on Scribd
The lawsuit wound its way through several legal steps but eventually Lesnar was dismissed from the lawsuit and the UFC and White prevailed to dismiss the lawsuit with the exception of one claim which was subsequently dismissed to make room for the appeal.
Hunt filed his Appeal Brief on March 25th. The parties agreed for an extension of time for Zuffa and White to file their brief which occurred last week.
The primary issues that piqued my interest in the answering brief was the argument that Hunt did not have viable damages as a result of his contract claim and that his battery claim is not valid as Hunt’s contention that Lesnar took PEDs is a likely possibility in MMA.
First, Zuffa argues that Hunt brought up new issues on appeal. The argument comes down to the type of damages Hunt claimed. The New Zealander’s lawsuit was dismissed because the trial court claimed that the damages, he sought were not the kind that flowed directly from a breach of contract case. Specifically, the trial court recognized that Hunt was paid the requisite amount according to his bout agreement and that his damages were “consequential” in nature. Hunt’s pay was premised upon a “flat fee” of $750,000. Thus, he did not lose any potential earnings from the bout agreement since he would not have accrued any more money if he had won. Since this is case, the trial court claimed that the rest of the damages Hunt had claimed (i.e., appearance cancellations, a decrease in merchandise sales, etc.) were consequential damages and not recoverable under the bout agreement he signed. Consequential damages are damages that do not necessarily, but do directly, naturally, and proximately result from the injury for which compensation is sought. Not only must the damages be directly traceable to the breach of contract and result from it, but the damages must also be “foreseeable.” Hunt’s claims of loss of appearances and merchandise sales could be feasibly traced back to the loss and that is what the fighter argues. However, Zuffa argues that there was not a causal link between Hunt’s loss as a result of Lesnar’s PED uses to the loss of profits after the fight.
Hunt argued that the trial court “mischaracterized the nature of Hunt’s alleged breach of contract damages, which he asserted as reliance damages resulting from UFC’s material breaches of the PARA and FUC 200 Bout Agreement.” Hunt claimed that his damages were “reliance” damages, money expended based on his agreements with the UFC. Specifically, Hunt alleged that he “wasted” $100,000 on training and preparing for UFC 200 and UFC Fight Night 121. Recall, Hunt was supposed to fight in UFC Fight Night 121 in Australia but he was removed by the UFC based on an article he wrote in which he claimed he had lingering affects of head trauma. In a Supplemental Complaint, Hunt argued that the removal from the Fight Night 121 was in line with his claim based on his fight at UFC 200. The UFC argued that he was removed from that card due to the fact they had concerns about his health which were raised by his own words in the article.
Reliance damages are a party’s interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract not been made. Hunt claims that his losses accrued due to the fact that the claimed scheme by Zuffa and White was to put him up against Lesnar knowing that he was on PEDs. Thus, Hunt’s expenses were in reliance on a bout agreement with a non-PED fighter. In his appeal brief, Hunt argued that if they had the chance to depose White or a representative of Zuffa with knowledge of the contract Hunt signed, they would be able to demonstrate the extent of the false promises relied upon.
While the trial court did not see these damages as reliance damages, Zuffa understandably maintained that Hunt’s damages were consequential damages not in purview of the contract.
Also, of interest is the argument that Hunt claimed the tort of battery as a result of the damages he suffered in the Octagon in his fight with Lesnar. The argument was that he did not consent to fight an athlete that was taking performance enhancing drugs. As a result, the subsequent fight with Lesnar was considered a battery per Hunt. Zuffa utilizes Hunt’s words in his opening brief citing that “doping is sometimes an unfortunate reality in the sport of MMA.” They also cite to texts between Hunt and White in arguing that Hunt knew of the risks. Zuffa argued that Hunt “fully anticipated the possibility that Lesnar would use prohibited substances to gain a competitive advantage.” The Court went on to state, “[a]ccepting as true Hunt’s detailed allegations about the unfortunate prevalence of doping in MMA and his concern that Lesnar would use prohibited substances before UFC 200, the district court properly ruled that Hunt both expressly and impliedly consented to the purported battery by Lesnar.”
As it relates to his battery claims, #Zuffa argues that taking PEDs is "an unfortunate reality" in the sport and Hunt "anticipated the possibility" thus cannot claim its outside the range of ordinary activity in #MMA. #sportslaw https://t.co/veEUtkHUOA pic.twitter.com/llDr40lDHJ
— Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) May 28, 2020
This part boils down to whether the appellate court adopts the California Supreme Court case of Avila v. Citrus Community College District. In that case a baseball player was struck in the head by a beanball from the pitcher and subsequently sued. The California Supreme Court ruled that the baseball player’s voluntary participation constituted consent to inherent risks of the game including conduct in violation of the rules that would require dismissal of battery claim. In Nevada, where this case was originally filed, there does not appear to be any authority as to this particular issue so Zuffa is requesting this adaptation. The trial court dismissed the battery claim acknowledging that the type of conduct by Lesnar during the fight did not exceed the ordinary range of activity in an MMA fight.
Payout Perspective:
Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to reply to Zuffa’s Answering Brief but one thing is clear: they will have an uphill battle in the appeal. Zuffa’s brief essential agrees with the trial court ruling as one might expect because it sided with its position. The damages claimed by Hunt were outside the scope of those that are traditionally needed for a contract-type breach dispute according to Zuffa. Moreover, some of the alleged damages Hunt notes were not originally claimed in the lawsuit. Also of note is Zuffa’s request that the Court adopt the Avila case here when it comes to Hunt’s battery claim. The “ordinary activity involved in the sport” is something that should be looked at closely. Zuffa acknowledges that PED is inherent in the sport and uses Hunt’s alleged words that doping is an “unfortunate reality in the sport of MMA.” What’s interesting is the acknowledgement of doping and using it as an affirmative defense to Hunt’s claim that he did not consent to fight a doping fighter. The argument may work as it seems that the Court must interpret what exactly is an “ordinary activity” and whether PED-use is a part of the sport of MMA.
Leave a Reply