Hunt v. Zuffa, LLC
361 F.Supp.3d 992 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Financial damages premised on the speculative outcome of a sporting event are insufficient to establish the direct proximate cause required for civil RICO and fraud claims. Furthermore, consent to participate in a contact sport is not automatically negated by an opponent's violation of the sport's rules, such as doping, unless the opponent's conduct falls totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in that sport.
Facts:
- In 2013, Mark Hunt fought Antonio Silva, who Hunt alleges was granted a Therapeutic Use Exemption by Zuffa, LLC (UFC) and subsequently tested positive for abnormally high testosterone levels. Hunt broke his hand during this bout.
- In March 2016, Hunt fought Frank Mir, who Hunt claims also abused a Therapeutic Use Exemption granted by UFC.
- In April 2016, Hunt entered into a multi-fight agreement with UFC that entitled him to a fixed purse per bout, regardless of the outcome.
- Between March and June 2016, UFC and its president Dana White secretly negotiated for retired fighter Brock Lesnar to return for a bout against Hunt at UFC 200 in July 2016.
- UFC granted Lesnar an exemption from its Anti-Doping Policy, which normally required returning fighters to undergo a four-month testing period before competing.
- When Hunt expressed concern about Lesnar's potential doping, White assured him that Lesnar would be the most tested athlete on the card.
- On July 9, 2016, Lesnar defeated Hunt by unanimous decision at UFC 200, during which Hunt sustained physical injuries.
- After the bout, results from Lesnar's pre-fight urine samples revealed the presence of banned substances, and his victory was subsequently overturned and declared a 'no contest'.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Hunt filed a lawsuit against Zuffa, LLC (UFC), Dana White, and Brock Lesnar in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
- The court previously dismissed most of Hunt's original claims but granted him leave to amend his complaint.
- Hunt filed an amended and supplemental complaint, re-alleging claims for civil RICO, fraud, battery, breach of contract, and other torts.
- All three defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss the amended and supplemental claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a professional fighter's claim for financial losses, premised on the speculative assumption that he would have won a bout if his opponent had not been using performance-enhancing drugs, satisfy the direct proximate cause requirement for civil RICO and fraud claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
No. A fighter's claim for financial losses does not satisfy the proximate cause requirement for RICO and fraud when it is based on the speculative premise that he would have won a bout absent his opponent's doping. Hunt's theory of damages rests on a multi-part chain of causation that is too speculative to support his claims. The core premise—that Hunt would have won the bout against a non-doping Lesnar—is impossible to prove and does not establish the direct causal link required for RICO standing. Similarly, for the battery claim, Hunt consented to the physical contact inherent in an MMA bout. Lesnar’s alleged doping, while a rule violation, did not alter his conduct to be 'totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport,' and thus did not vitiate Hunt's consent. The breach of contract claim also fails because Hunt received his contractually guaranteed purse, and any further losses are consequential damages, which are explicitly barred by his agreement with UFC.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant barrier for athletes seeking damages for an opponent's cheating, particularly under RICO and fraud theories. The court's holding on proximate cause reinforces that a direct, concrete link between the wrongful act and the financial loss is required, and speculative outcomes of sporting events do not meet this standard. The decision also clarifies the scope of consent in sports torts, suggesting that rule violations like doping are treated as inherent risks of the sport rather than conduct that negates consent, unless the conduct itself is fundamentally outside the sport's normal activities. This precedent will likely make it more difficult for athletes to succeed on claims for financial losses resulting from competition against opponents using performance-enhancing drugs.
