• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Brock Lesnar files reply in Mark Hunt appeal

May 9, 2024 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

The Mark Hunt appeal continues. On May 8th, Brock Lesnar and Dana White have filed Answering Briefs to Hunt’s pro se appeal. Lesnar’s attorneys argued that the district court was correct in dismissing Hunt’s claims.

Hunt had filed a lawsuit against Dana White, Brock Lesnar and the UFC. The case was initially dismissed, appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then sent back to the district court where the district court dismissed it again on summary judgment grounds.

Lesnar’s attorneys point out that Hunt is on his own in this appeal although they believe he has a “ghost writer” working with him. Hunt had filed an appeal brief which all defendants argue include information not within the record and filled with baseless conclusions.

Lesnar’s attorneys refute the claims made by Hunt against Lesnar noting that Hunt never negotiated a contract where he would fight a “clean” fighter.

Lesnar tested positive for a banned substance at UFC 200 where he faced Hunt. However, it was not discovered until after the fight. Lesnar was tested most of June for his July fight. Although he did not have a positive test for most of June, a banned substance was discovered. Hunt argued that Lesnar was provided a USADA exemption in which he did not have to wait for four months to be in the testing pool prior to his first fight.

Hunt had filed his own appeal which Lesnar argues is wrought with arguments not in the previous record and baseless conclusions.

Hunt had filed a battery claim against Lesnar claiming he did not sign on to fight an individual that was taking banned substance. The district court had dismissed the claim based on the fact that Hunt did not argue that there was anything outside of the scope of the activity that he contracted to participate in. Lesnar’s attorneys also argue that Hunt had consented to fight Lesnar “regardless of whether he was using any prohibited substances.”

Payout Perspective:

The prospects of Hunt succeeding here is low as one might infer that he is appealing again out of spite. Some of Lesnar’s arguments do not seem to jive with supporting the belief that the former WWE champ was clean. It’s more like the argument is that Hunt did not contract to fight with someone that was guaranteed to be clean. Regardless, it may still work. MPO will continue to follow.

Filed Under: Featured, Hunt v. Zuffa, legal, UFC

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Court moves Ortiz case to arbitration

Dominance responds to Motion to Compel

Pac-May II set for September

Judge hears arguments in Golden Boy TRO request

Golden Boy files Reply Brief in support of TRO

Ortiz files opposition to TRO

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Wolfe downgrades TKO after strong rally

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

For the first time, here's a link to "Private Equity in College Sports," written by @SunealBedi, John Holden and myself, and forthcoming in Volume 111 of @MinnesotaLawRev:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6349318

Failed MMA fighter, but successful plumber and drafter of a cut and paste version of the mUhammAD aLi act takes over of Homeland Security

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Kristi, you’re fired!

(Yes, I had this ready)

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports