Update on Mark Hunt's lawsuit against UFC

KazDibiase

"My style is kneeing people in the face."
@Silver
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Messages
11,778
Reaction score
46,318
file.jpg
1caf1e_25c0337785e0431ca9e7ee783b2c36fa~mv2.webp




In 2016, former UFC fighter Mark Hunt sued the UFC, Dana White, and Brock Lesnar on the heels of UFC 200, pictured above. Hunt claimed that the UFC and White, specifically, knew that Brock Lesnar had taken performance-enhancing drugs and let him fight anyway. Lesnar won the fight, but the decision was overturned when it was revealed that Lesnar failed a drug test. With that, Hunt alleged a slew of wrongdoings, including fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, battery, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.



In 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the majority of Hunt's claims. All claims against White and Lesnar were dismissed. The only claim that remained was the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, that claim was later thrown out after the UFC secured a summary judgment. Now, on September 24, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit brought the case back to life.



The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of two of his claims: fraud and battery. The 2019 dismissal of Hunt's claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was affirmed. Still, this serves as a massive breakthrough for Hunt, as the district court will have to again hear his claims for fraud and battery.



As for the fraud claim, the Ninth Circuit held that Dana White's statement promising that Lesnar "will be the most tested athlete on this card" could form a basis for fraud as it was a false representation of material fact.


file.jpg
1caf1e_d4f28922d15045199f6af24deb34cb2f~mv2.webp




While the district court felt that any damages arising out of fraud were too speculative (projecting Hunt's purse had he won and Lesnar not taken PEDs), the Ninth Circuit took a different route. The court envisioned damages through a different lens than wins and losses: withdrawal. Had Hunt known of the doping scheme, he claims he would have dropped out of UFC 200. With that, damages become a bit easier to discern, according to the court. This theory of damages is "far more susceptible to proof."



file.jpg
1caf1e_eec480c5c7174e7cb9672f03de6b85ad~mv2.webp




As for Hunt's other revived claim, battery, the court hashed out the doctrine of assumption of the risk in sport. A battery is an intentional and offensive touching of a person who has not consented to the touching. Did Brock Lesnar commit a battery by fighting Mark Hunt in the octagon? Would the UFC be vicariously liable? The Restatement identifies assumption of risk as "[c]onsent to conduct that is merely negligent, creating an unreasonable risk of harm." In the NFL, for example, a running back cannot claim that a linebacker committed a battery after a routine tackle caused an injury. Athletes assume the inherent risks of the game. But did Mark Hunt assume the risk that he would have to fight someone taking performance-enhancing drugs? It's a question I look forward to the U.S. District Court in Nevada answering.



We will keep tabs on this lawsuit as it makes its way back to the district court on remand. It has been a busy year for the UFC and litigation.



https://www.conductdetrimental.com/...ores-big-court-win-against-ufc-and-dana-white
 
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
What's the end goal?
 
file.jpg
1caf1e_25c0337785e0431ca9e7ee783b2c36fa~mv2.webp




In 2016, former UFC fighter Mark Hunt sued the UFC, Dana White, and Brock Lesnar on the heels of UFC 200, pictured above. Hunt claimed that the UFC and White, specifically, knew that Brock Lesnar had taken performance-enhancing drugs and let him fight anyway. Lesnar won the fight, but the decision was overturned when it was revealed that Lesnar failed a drug test. With that, Hunt alleged a slew of wrongdoings, including fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, battery, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.



In 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the majority of Hunt's claims. All claims against White and Lesnar were dismissed. The only claim that remained was the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, that claim was later thrown out after the UFC secured a summary judgment. Now, on September 24, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit brought the case back to life.



The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of two of his claims: fraud and battery. The 2019 dismissal of Hunt's claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was affirmed. Still, this serves as a massive breakthrough for Hunt, as the district court will have to again hear his claims for fraud and battery.



As for the fraud claim, the Ninth Circuit held that Dana White's statement promising that Lesnar "will be the most tested athlete on this card" could form a basis for fraud as it was a false representation of material fact.


file.jpg
1caf1e_d4f28922d15045199f6af24deb34cb2f~mv2.webp




While the district court felt that any damages arising out of fraud were too speculative (projecting Hunt's purse had he won and Lesnar not taken PEDs), the Ninth Circuit took a different route. The court envisioned damages through a different lens than wins and losses: withdrawal. Had Hunt known of the doping scheme, he claims he would have dropped out of UFC 200. With that, damages become a bit easier to discern, according to the court. This theory of damages is "far more susceptible to proof."



file.jpg
1caf1e_eec480c5c7174e7cb9672f03de6b85ad~mv2.webp




As for Hunt's other revived claim, battery, the court hashed out the doctrine of assumption of the risk in sport. A battery is an intentional and offensive touching of a person who has not consented to the touching. Did Brock Lesnar commit a battery by fighting Mark Hunt in the octagon? Would the UFC be vicariously liable? The Restatement identifies assumption of risk as "[c]onsent to conduct that is merely negligent, creating an unreasonable risk of harm." In the NFL, for example, a running back cannot claim that a linebacker committed a battery after a routine tackle caused an injury. Athletes assume the inherent risks of the game. But did Mark Hunt assume the risk that he would have to fight someone taking performance-enhancing drugs? It's a question I look forward to the U.S. District Court in Nevada answering.



We will keep tabs on this lawsuit as it makes its way back to the district court on remand. It has been a busy year for the UFC and litigation.



https://www.conductdetrimental.com/...ores-big-court-win-against-ufc-and-dana-white

Wow I thought this was dead and buried. For it to come back from the ashes must mean there is some reasonable shot at success.
 
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
What's the end goal?
Ummm not having clean fighters have a dangerous disadvantage against steroid freaks who Dana knowingly allows to usurp drug testing?
 
Ummm not having clean fighters have a dangerous disadvantage against steroid freaks who Dana knowingly allows to usurp drug testing?

That's already in the rules.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,838
Messages
55,311,346
Members
174,733
Latest member
NiTrok
Back
Top