McCullough v. World Wrestling Entm't, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-001074 (VLB), CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-00425 (VLB), CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-01156 (VLB) |
| Citation | 172 F.Supp.3d 528 |
| Parties | Russ McCullough, a/k/a “Big Russ McCullough”, Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Weise, a/k/a “Luther Reigns,” individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Defendant. Evan Singleton and Vito Lograsso Plaintiffs, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Defendant. William Albert Haynes III, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Jonas P. Mann, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP, San Francisco, CA, R. Christopher Gilreath, Gilreath & Associates, PLLC, Memphis, TN, William M. Bloss, Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C., Bridgeport, CT, Konstantine Kyros, Kyros Law Offices, Hingham, MA, for Plaintiffs.
B. John Casey, K & L Gates LLP, Portland, OR, Christopher M. Verdini, Stefanie M. Lacy, Terry Budd, Curtis B. Krasik, Jerry S. McDevitt, K & L Gates, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Eugene J. Podesta, Jr., Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkovitz, PC, Memphis, TN, Paul R. Genender, K & L Gates LLP, TX, Dallas, TX, Jeffrey Mueller, Day Pitney LLP, Hartford, CT, Jonathan B. Tropp, Thomas D. Goldberg, Day Pitney LLP, Stamford, CT, for Defendant.
Plaintiffs in this consolidated action are former wrestlers for World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (“WWE”), a Connecticut entertainment company which produces televised wrestling programming. Plaintiffs allege that they are either suffering from symptoms of permanent degenerative neurological conditions resulting from traumatic brain injuries sustained during their employment as wrestlers for WWE or are at increased risk of developing such conditions. Plaintiffs claim that they were injured as a result of WWE's negligence in scripting violent conduct and failing to properly educate, prevent, diagnose and treat them for concussions. Plaintiffs also claim that WWE had knowledge of evidence suggesting a link between repeated head trauma that could be sustained during WWE events and permanent degenerative neurological conditions such as CTE and either concealed such evidence, fraudulent or negligently denied that it existed, or failed to disclose it in the face of a duty to disclose. Plaintiffs allege that they relied on such fraudulent statements or omissions to their detriment in making decisions regarding their health. In total, plaintiffs have asserted six claims against WWE in their Complaints, including: “Fraudulent Concealment”; (Count II) “Fraud by Omission”; (Count III) Negligent Misrepresentation; (Count IV) Fraudulent Deceit; (Count V) Negligence; and (Count VI) Medical Monitoring.
Currently before the Court are WWE's Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint brought by plaintiffs Singleton and LoGrasso, in its entirety, for failure to state a claim, as well as WWE's similar Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints brought by Plaintiff William Albert Haynes III and Plaintiffs Russ McCullough, Ryan Sakoda and Matthew Wiese, both of which are purported class actions. [Dkt. # 74, Dkt. 95].
Specifically, WWE argues that the claims of all of the plaintiffs except Singleton must be dismissed because they are all time-barred by the applicable Connecticut statutes of limitations and repose, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52–584 and § 52–577. [Dkt. 43-1, Def.'s Mem. at 1]. WWE also argues that Plaintiffs' negligence-based claims must be dismissed because WWE owed no duty of care to protect Plaintiffs from injuries resulting “from the inherent risks of professional wrestling and within the normal expectations of professional wrestlers.” [Id. at 2]. Finally, WWE argues that the plaintiffs' fraud claims, negligent misrepresentation claims and deceit claims must be dismissed either because they fail to comply with the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) or because they fail to state a cognizable cause of action under Connecticut law. [Id.].
Plaintiffs respond by arguing that the statutes of limitation and repose are subject to tolling based on the continuous course of conduct tdoctrine and because of fraudulent concealment pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52–595. Plaintiffs argue that they have stated claims for negligence because WWE owed a duty of care to protect the Plaintiffs from the long term neurological effects that may result from sustaining multiple concussions and have stated claims for fraud because WWE failed to disclose that Plaintiffs were at risk for such neurological conditions.
For the reasons that follow, WWE's Motion to Dismiss the Singleton action [Dkt. 43] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and WWE's Motions to Dismiss the McCullough and Haynes actions [Dkt. 95, Dkt. 64] are GRANTED.
The following facts and allegations are taken from the Second Amended Complaint in the action brought by Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso [3:15-cv-00425-VLB, Dkt. #73] (hereinafter “SAC”) ] as well as the Amended Complaint in the purported class action brought by Russ McCullough [Dkt. 73] (hereinafter “MAC”) ] and the Amended Complaint in the purported class action brought by William Albert Haynes [3:15-cv-01156-VLB, Dkt. #43] (hereinafter “HAC”) ]. All three Complaints contain nearly identical factual allegations with the exception of certain paragraphs alleging facts particular to each named plaintiff. The Complaints are also excessively lengthy, including large numbers of paragraphs that offer content unrelated to the Plaintiffs' causes of action and appear aimed at an audience other than this Court.
The WWE is an “organizer and purveyor of professional wrestling events, programs, and matches.” [SAC ¶ 19]. WWE events are alleged to be an “action soap opera” in that the events are scripted, both as to dialogue between the wrestlers as well as the actual physical wrestling stunts, and the events have preordained winners and losers. [Id. ¶ 20]. Plaintiffs allege that WWE creates scripts for its performances that require its wrestlers to perform “activities that are exceedingly dangerous.” [Id. ¶¶ 40, 44]. Plaintiffs allege that WWE adds what it calls “heat” to its scripts in order to ensure that there is “extra physicality” in its matches, including the use of weapons or chairs in its stunts. [Id. ¶ 44]. Plaintiffs allege that they have sustained “thousands of hits to their heads as part of scripted and choreographed moves.” [Id. ¶ 50]. As a result, Plaintiffs “believe they are at greater risk for developing long-term brain diseases such as dementia, Alzheimer's disease, ALS, and CTE.” [Id. ¶ 2].
The WWE employs trainers and doctors to oversee its wrestling events and to treat and monitor its wrestlers for injuries they sustain from participation in the events or practices. [Id. ¶¶ 86, 129, 131]. Specifically, the WWE created a “Wellness Program,” launched on February 27, 2006, which provides “[c]omprehensive medical and wellness staffing, cardiovascular testing and monitoring, ImPACT concussion testing, substance abuse and drug testing, annual physicals, [and] health care referrals” to current and former WWE wrestlers. [Id. ¶ 78]. The WWE also is alleged to collect injury reports concerning injuries sustained by WWE talent in the ring. [Id. ¶ 89].
Plaintiffs define a “concussion” as a type of mild traumatic brain injury (“MTBI”) caused by a ‘bump, blow, or jolt to the head or body.’ A blow to the head that does not cause a concussion, or that has not been diagnosed to cause a concussion, is commonly referred to as a sub-concussive blow.” [Id. ¶ 26]. Concussions cause numerous symptoms including: “headaches and problems with concentration, memory, balance coordination, loss of consciousness, confusion, disorientation, nausea, vomiting, fatigue or drowsiness, difficulty sleeping, sleeping more than usual, and seizures.” [Id. ¶ 28].
Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (“CTE”) is defined in the Complaints as a permanent change to brain structure caused by repeated blows to the head. [SAC ¶¶ 32-33]. CTE is usually caused by repeated minor traumatic brain injuries that “often occur[ ] well before the development of clinical manifestations,” rather than from a single injury. [Id. ¶ 34]. Concussions can cause CTE, but are not the only cause: repeated sub-concussive head trauma can also cause CTE.” [Id. ¶ 25]. Furthermore, sustaining repeated mild traumatic brain injuries without taking sufficient time to recover may significantly increase the risk of developing CTE. [Id. ¶ 30]. Symptoms of CTE include “depression, dementia, cognitive impairment, Parkinsonism, personality change, speech and gait abnormalities.” [SAC ¶ 33]. Whereas a concussion's symptoms “are often sensory and manifest immediately,” CTE can manifest much later, and “can be caused by blows which have no accompanying symptoms.” [Id. ¶¶ 35-36]. Unlike concussions, CTE can only be diagnosed post mortem with a “direct tissue examination, which can detect an elevated level of Tau protein in brain tissue.” Id.
Each of the six named plaintiffs alleges that they were “never educated about the ramifications of head trauma and injury and never received any medical information regarding concussion or sub-concussive injuries while employed by the WWE.” [SAC ¶¶ 138-139]. Rather, Plaintiffs claim that they “relied on WWE's superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
- Tanasi v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
- Schmitz v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
- McCullough v. World Wrestling Entm't, Inc.
-
Medical Monitoring – 50-State Survey
...trial courts have consistently rejected claims for no-injury medical monitoring. See McCullough v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., 172 F. Supp.3d 528, 567 (D. Conn. 2016) (“plaintiffs have failed to articulate any authority supporting the proposition that plaintiffs can bring a cause o......
-
Live Free, or at Least Have a Present Injury
...2001). Arkansas: In re Prempro, 230 F.R.D. 555, 569 (E.D. Ark. 2005). Connecticut: McCullough v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., 172 F. Supp.3d 528, 567 (D. Conn. 2016); Goodall v. United Illuminating, 1998 WL 914274, at *10 (Conn. Super. Dec. 15, 1998); Bowerman v. United Illuminating......
-
Famously Fake: Using the Law to Reverse the Demise of Social Media Credibility.
...An Outline of 23 California Common Law Business Torts, 13 PAC. L.J. 1, 6 (1981). (121.) See McCullough v. World Wrestling Ent., Inc., 172 F. Supp. 3d 528, 563 (D. Conn. 2016) (laying out where Connecticut courts have a different definition and different application of non-disclosed facts in......