The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments in Mark Hunt’s appeal of his lawsuit against the UFC and Brock Lesnar on Monday. The three-judge panel brought to light several key issues in the lawsuit.
Hunt’s lawsuit filed in federal court in Nevada was dismissed by on Zuffa and Brock Lesnar’s Motion to Dismiss. The appeal highlighted two key issues on appeal.
The first issue was the damages claimed by Mark Hunt. The trial court dismissed Hunt’s claims because they believe his breach of contract argument fell short due to the skeptical nature of his damages. Hunt asserted during oral argument on Monday that he had spent money on travel and training in preparation for his fight against Brock Lesnar. These damages he claimed to be as a consequence of the breach by Lesnar that he took PEDs. Consequential damages are those that flow directly from the contract. Zuffa argued that these claims were “reliance” damages which put the injured party in the same money position as if the contract had never been formed. Since Hunt has been fully compensated for his bouts, they argued that there were not foreseeable damages out of the contract claim. Moreover, there was no breach of contract. The trial court agreed.
In the appellate court hearing, Hunt’s attorney stated, “Brock Lesnar cheated and got caught and the UFC looked the other way.” Despite a strong opening, Hunt’s attorney was on the defensive with his breach of contract claim. The three judge panel was skeptical about the allegation.
Judge argues that the breach of contract claim is an "uphill battle." Judge cites how much Hunt made and that he would have to remit the money received. He argues fraud or fraud in inducement, not Breach of K https://t.co/7YsSsrPeko
— Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) October 5, 2020
They believe that the claim of breach of contract faced an “uphill battle” based upon the facts. Similarly, one of the judges seemed troubled with the fraud and fraud in inducement claims levied in the lawsuit citing that Hunt was compensated for his fights and unless he decided prior to the fight that he could not participate due to Lesnar cheating would there be a plausible claim. Hunt’s attorney countered this argument by claiming that but for Lesnar as the opponent he would not have spent the amount of money for training and traveling.
The court then talked baseball when they discussed the battery claim. The seminal case discussed by the trial court and by this court here was Avila v. Citrus Community College District. In that case, a baseball player sued the school district after he was beanballed by a pitcher. The court dismissed that lawsuit claiming that despite the pitch thrown at the player’s head, it was still within the assumption of the risk of the game.
Here, Hunt’s attorney was able to make salient points as he sought common ground with one of the judges with a baseball analogy.
Probably strongest argument here to dissect Avila stating that the risk was not reasonable. https://t.co/KJbL4EJ3nU
— Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) October 5, 2020
Hunt’s attorney argued that as a beanball could kill someone, an MMA fighter taking PEDs could kill someone.
On the Zuffa side, they were very smooth in arguing the breach of contract claim since it appeared that the court sided with them on this claim. However, the court was a little troubled with the timeline presented regarding when Lesnar was tested and when they learned of the results.
According to the timeline during oral arguments, Zuffa noted that Lesnar’s last drug test he took prior to his July 9th fight was June 28th. However, the UFC did not learn of the results until post-fight. This seemed to be a glaring question mark for the court as they possibility of expediting the tests seemed to be an issue.
The court probed about whether a fraud claim would be viable based on the nondisclosure by a party. Zuffa answered in the affirmative although they argue this was not the case here. This question was premised upon whether Zuffa’s lack of disclosure constituted a fraud by not knowing about Lesnar’s drug test until after the event. This would be a sort of plausible deniability on the part of the organization.
An interesting take by both Zuffa and Lesnar’s attorney was that there was no way that a fighter could contract out of someone from taking PEDs. Moreover the court asked if there was a corollary between the Avila case and one in which someone takes PEDs.
Judge notes that when it is found that baseball players are found to be doped, there are "significant consequences" Asks if there is a corollary between intentional torts and doping
— Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) October 5, 2020
"You make it seem completely pointless to seek out assurances that fighters are not doping" Judge to Lesnar attorney.
— Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) October 5, 2020
Payout Perspective:
The appeals court’s job is to ask pointed questions of each party based on the submitted briefing and exhibits. There’s no sign as to whether they would affirm the dismissal or remand the case back to the trial court. It does seem that the contract claim may not be the strongest argument for Hunt. However, they seemed to pick apart the question about Lesnar’s testing. Notably, the timeline as to when Lesnar took his last drug test and when the results were released came into question. The court also asked who requested an exemption for Lesnar to be allowed into the testing pool in a shorter period than normal.
Leave a Reply