361 F. Supp. 3d 992
D. Nev.2019Background
- Plaintiff Mark Hunt, an MMA fighter, sued UFC (Zuffa), Dana White, and Brock Lesnar alleging a scheme to permit select fighters to use performance-enhancing drugs, causing Hunt to lose bouts, suffer injury, and incur financial losses.
- Central events: alleged abuse of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) by Antonio Silva and Frank Mir; and Lesnar’s return for UFC 200 where Hunt claims Lesnar doped and UFC/White concealed Lesnar’s status to avoid a four‑month testing period. Lesnar beat Hunt; the result was later overturned after positive tests.
- Hunt pleaded federal and Nevada RICO claims, common‑law fraud and aiding/abetting, breach of contract and implied covenant, unjust enrichment, battery, and civil conspiracy; prior dismissal gave leave to amend.
- Court scrutinized proximate causation for RICO and related torts: Hunt alleged canceled appearances, reduced online revenue, lost licensing/book sales, and training‑camp losses attributable to the UFC 200 loss.
- District court dismissed all claims with prejudice except breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against UFC; White and Lesnar were dismissed from the case. Parties ordered to a mandatory settlement conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO (federal & Nevada) — standing/proximate causation for losses from UFC 200 | Hunt: defendants’ scheme caused him concrete business losses (cancelled appearances, lost revenue/licensing/book sales) because Lesnar’s doping led to his defeat | Defendants: alleged harms are speculative, remote, or personal‑injury consequences not recoverable under RICO; causal chain is attenuated | Dismissed with prejudice — plaintiff failed to plead proximate causation and cognizable RICO injury; prior warning; no further amendment allowed |
| RICO — retaliation predicated on 18 U.S.C. §1513 (removal from UFC 121) | Hunt: removal was retaliation for suing and public statements, invoking §1513 predicate act | Defendants: complaint failed to plead §1513 elements or give notice; alleged harms are not bodily injury or tangible property damage | Dismissed with prejudice — claim inadequately pleaded and amendment would be futile |
| Fraud and aiding/abetting | Hunt: White’s assurances that Lesnar was being extensively tested were false and induced reliance causing damages | Defendants: statements non‑actionable or conclusory; causation speculative | Dismissed with prejudice — fraud fails for lack of proximate causation; aiding/abetting fails because substantive tort not viable |
| Breach of contract and implied covenant; consequential damages | Hunt: UFC breached PARA and NAC rules by allowing doped fighters; seeks consequential losses beyond purse | Defendants: PARA guarantees fixed purse regardless of result and expressly bars consequential damages | Breach claim dismissed with prejudice (Hunt received purse; consequential damages precluded); implied‑covenant claim survives against UFC only |
| Unjust enrichment/quantum meruit | Hunt: equitable recovery because he conferred benefit by fighting a doped opponent | Defendants: contract exists — equitable remedy unavailable | Dismissed with prejudice — quasi‑contract not available where express contract governs |
| Battery (Lesnar) and related aiding/abetting; civil conspiracy | Hunt: Lesnar’s doping made contact tortious; Conspiracy alleged as to fraud and battery | Defendants: Hunt consented to an MMA bout (assumption of risk); alleged conduct not beyond ordinary range of sport | Battery and related claims dismissed with prejudice (consent/assumption of risk); conspiracy dismissed because underlying torts fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies plausibility standard to dismiss conclusory claims)
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (limits proximate cause/standing in RICO to direct victims)
- Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (proximate causation and remoteness in RICO/antitrust context)
- Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., 301 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. — allowing market‑effect RICO/antitrust claims where plaintiffs allege market power; addressed expert proof at later stages)
- Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, 232 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. — antitrust damages and plaintiffs’ ability to allege measurable market effects)
- Canyon County v. Sybersound Records, 519 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. — RICO requires concrete financial loss; speculative harms insufficient)