Hunt v. Zuffa, LLC

• Decision Date: 14 February 2019
• Docket Number: Case No.: 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH
• Citation: 361 F.Supp.3d 992
• Parties: Mark HUNT, Plaintiff v. ZUFFA, LLC dba Ultimate Fighting Championship, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

361 F.Supp.3d 992

Mark HUNT, Plaintiff

v.ZUFFA, LLC dba Ultimate Fighting Championship, et al., Defendants

Case No.: 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Signed February 14, 2019

Brian W. Boschee, Holley Driggs Walch Fine Puzey Stein & Thompson, Las Vegas, NV, Christina Denning, Pro Hac Vice, Denning Moores, APC, Joseph A. Gonnella, Pro Hac Vice, Scott J. Ingold, Higgs Fletcher & Mack, San Diego, CA, James F. Holtz, Ranalli Zaniel Fowler & Moran LLC, Henderson, NV, for Plaintiff.

J. Colby Williams, Philip R. Erwin, Campbell & Williams, Kendelee L. WorksPeter S. Christiansen, Christiansen Law Offices, Las Vegas, NV, Howard Lee Jacobs, Law Offices of Howard L. Jacobs, Westlake Village, CA, for Defendants.

Order Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, and Denying Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice

[ECF Nos. 111, 113, 115, 116, 126]

U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. DorseyPlaintiff Mark Hunt sues Zuffa, LLC dba Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), its president Dana White, and mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter Brock Lesnar, alleging that UFC surreptitiously and strategically manipulated its own drug-testing requirements to allow select UFC fighters to use performance-enhancing drugs. Hunt, who claims to be a drug-free fighter, alleges that he lost at least two bouts against drug-enhanced competitors, including Lesnar, damaging his brand as an MMA fighter, stunting several of his related income streams, and physically injuring him. Hunt alleges civil violations of the federal and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state-law tort and contract claims. Except for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, I previously dismissed all of Hunt's claims with leave to amend¹ —cautioning Hunt that his allegations were unlikely to support his RICO and tort theories.²

Hunt filed an amended and supplemental complaint,³ and defendants now move to dismiss all claims except for Hunt's claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.⁴ Although Hunt has added detailed allegations to his operative complaints, his main theory of damages—that he would have won UFC 200 if Lesnar hadn't been doping—is highly speculative and thus fails to show that defendants' alleged RICO violations and fraud proximately caused Hunt's financial losses. Hunt's remaining claims are also fatally defective. Because Hunt has had ample opportunity to state plausible claims and remains unable to do so, I dismiss the claims challenged by defendants' motions with prejudice. This case proceeds on Hunt's breach-of-the-implied-covenant-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing claim against UFC only.

Background

UFC is the largest MMA promoter in the world, accounting for a vast majority of the sport's revenue.⁵ It has enacted an "Anti-Doping Policy" that, by its own description, aims to develop "the best anti-doping program in all of professional sports."⁶ Hunt alleges that UFC circumvents this policy through its "rampant" use of drug-testing exemptions⁷ that allow select fighters to use substances banned by UFC's policy, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and the Nevada Athletic Commission (NAC).⁸ These doping fighters, Hunt contends, gain a competitive advantage training for and fighting in bouts,⁹ and by turning a blind eye to or even facilitating their doping, UFC profits from televised "Fight Night" events featuring star fighters who would otherwise be ineligible to compete.¹⁰

Hunt alleges that one such event occurred in late 2013 in a globally broadcasted UFC Fight Night in which he fought Antonio Silva.¹¹ Hunt claims that "Silva had a pre-existing history of using prohibited substances," but UFC nonetheless granted him a "Therapeutic Use Exemption," (TRU) which allowed Silva to use testosterone

injections.¹² With UFC's assistance, Hunt alleges, Silva abused this exemption and, unbeknownst to Hunt before the bout, he "tested positive for abnormally high testosterone levels."¹³ Hunt broke his hand during the bout, which was declared a draw and which Hunt claims he would have won if Silva hadn't been doping.¹⁴ During his recovery, Hunt missed at least three fights and therefore did not earn income from them.¹⁵

In March 2016, Hunt fought Frank Mir, whom he claims similarly abused a TRU that UFC had granted him and "tested positive for a prohibited substance classified as an anabolic steroid."¹⁶ Hunt doesn't reveal that bout's outcome, but he asserts that "Mir's presence in the fighter pool, aided by UFC and [White], was illegitimate and artificially inflated the fighter pool, depressing wages paid to [Hunt]."¹⁷

But Hunt's claims primarily stem from his bout against Lesnar in UFC Fight Night 200. In April 2016, Hunt entered into a multi-fight "promotional and ancillary rights agreement" (PARA) with UFC.¹⁸ Under its terms, Hunt was entitled to a fixed lump sum (or "purse") per bout, regardless of whether he won or lost, and Hunt was prohibited from competing in other, non-UFC MMA fights.¹⁹ The following month, White began discussing the possibility of Hunt competing in UFC 200 in July 2016, but continuously told Hunt to "keep it quiet ...."²⁰ Hunt was unaware at the time that White had also begun secret discussions the prior month with Lesnar, who had retired from UFC in 2011 and become a professional wrestler, to compete in UFC 200.²¹ But in an ESPN interview in early June 2016, White denied that Lesnar was returning to UFC after Lesnar's name had appeared on a list of active fighters on UFC's website.²² That same day, however, Lesnar entered into a contract to compete in UFC 200, which the organization announced the following day.²³ Shortly thereafter, Lesnar admitted during a SportsCenter interview that his negotiations with UFC had begun around March 2016.²⁴

The crux of Hunt's claims is that White and UFC intentionally concealed Lesnar's return between March and June to help him circumvent its Anti-Doping Policy and to conceal the fact that Lesnar was training with performance-enhancing drugs.²⁵ Hunt points to a section of the policy applicable to retired fighters like Lesnar who return to compete in UFC, requiring them to submit to drug "[t]esting for a period of four months" before resuming fighting.²⁶ The policy also provides a testing exemption for "exceptional circumstances ...." Although not fully clear from the complaint, it appears that UFC granted Lesnar this exemption in June.²⁷ Hunt expressed concern to White that month that this exemption was being used to allow Lesnar to get any banned substances "out of his system" prior to him being tested for UFC 200.²⁸ White assured Hunt in response that Lesnar would be sufficiently drug tested, stating: "USADA is testing the sh-- outta [Lesnar] as we speak" and that "[h]e will be the most tested athlete on this card[.] Th[ey] are ALL OVER HIM."²⁹ Hunt, however, claims that White and UFC held off executing and announcing the bout agreement with Lesnar until a month before UFC 200—rather than in March—as a pretense for granting Lesnar the exemption to the four-month testing period.³⁰

On June 28, Lesnar provided USADA a urine sample.³¹ UFC had the option of paying a nominal fee to expedite the testing and receive the results within three days—ensuring they would arrive before UFC 200—but did not do so.³² On July 9, the day of the bout, Lesnar provided another urine sample.³³ In a unanimous decision, Lesnar defeated Hunt, who sustained undescribed "severe physical injury" during the bout.³⁴ Over the next two weeks, the results returned from Lesnar's two urine samples, revealing banned substances in his system that are "used after a period of strength training with anabolic steroids or similar prohibited substances."³⁵ As a result, Lesnar's victory was overturned at some point and declared a "no contest."³⁶

Hunt filed this suit in early 2017, claiming that he lost UFC 200 because of defendants' alleged scheme to conceal Lesnar's use of performance-enhancing drugs and that he consequently incurred a variety of financial losses.³⁷ Hunt nonetheless continued to fight for UFC and was scheduled to compete in UFC Fight Night 121 in November 2017.³⁸ In his supplemental complaint, Hunt alleges that UFC removed him from the event, citing "medical concerns."³⁹ He claims that this excuse was pretextual and that he was removed in retaliation for filing suit and for publishing an article the prior month accusing defendants of being part of a doping scheme. By missing the bout, Hunt was deprived of its purse and claims to have wasted more than $ 100,000 he spent on an MMA training camp in preparation for UFC 121.⁴⁰

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires every complaint to contain "[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."⁴¹ While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, the properly pled claim must contain enough facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."⁴² This "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation"; the facts alleged must raise the claim "above the speculative level."⁴³ In other words, a complaint must make direct or inferential allegations about "all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory."⁴⁴

District courts employ a two-step approach when evaluating a complaint's sufficiency on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The court must first accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint, recognizing that legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth.⁴⁵ Mere recitals of a claim's elements, supported by only conclusory statements, are insufficient.⁴⁶ The court must then consider whether the well-pled factual allegations state a plausible claim for relief.⁴⁷ A claim is facially plausible when the complaint alleges facts that allow the...