• 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

IBF seeks to stay discovery in Opetaia lawsuit

TKO announce Q3 earnings

UFC 333 bonuses

FBI seeking no-bid contract with the UFC

Court denies Top Rank’s Motion to Dismiss in Keane case

Opetaia fires back at IBF in opposition to MTD

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Houston may be losing but those Oilers colors are sweet

In an interview with Lara Trump, the #UFC CEO thinks that he will be investigated because of his ties to the president....Maybe also because his company received a "no bid" contract with the FBI at about the same time they threw an event on the White House lawn.

Sabs doing this with a little buzz, right?

NY πŸ—½ @ddubxdo

Sabrina really in her tik tok era πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Sean Duffy looks like a very dishonest guy to me.

I don’t believe a damn thing he is saying or the Homeland Security guy.

Both appear to be clueless and lying.

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Washington's game at Michigan State will now kickoff at 2:30 p.m. PT/5:30 p.m. ET. Was originally scheduled for 1:15 PT/4:15 ET. Still on BTN.

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