The Mark Hunt lawsuit against the UFC continued this year with an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although Hunt lost in the trial court, some of the questions posed by the appellate court judges made it seem that Hunt could win the appeal.
The appeals court was heard in early October by a set of judges in Portland, Oregon.
You may recall that Hunt sued the UFC, Dana White and Brock Lesnar alleging breach of contract, violations of civil RICO (only to Zuffa) and battery as a result of his loss at UFC 200 to the returning former UFC heavyweight champion. Lesnar failed a drug test after his victory. Hunt alleged that due to his loss, he suffered damages as a result.
One of the more interesting parts of the appeal was the issue related to the allegations of battery on the part of Lesnar. While case law argues that certain torts in sports are negated by the theor of assumption of the risk of participation, the question of the scope of the action was at question. Notably, the appeals court judges inquired whether there was a rule related to someone taking performance enhancing drugs.
Probably strongest argument here to dissect Avila stating that the risk was not reasonable. https://t.co/KJbL4EJ3nU
— Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) October 5, 2020
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
At the time of this writing, the Hunt appeal has not been decided. If the appeals court sides with Hunt, the trial court will follow the orders of the appeals court. If the appeals court, finds in favor of Zuffa, the case will be over unless Hunt decides to pursue other appeals.
Leave a Reply