172 F. Supp. 3d 528
D. Conn.2016Background
- Plaintiffs are former WWE wrestlers alleging long-term neurological injuries or risk from repeated head trauma during WWE employment.
- Plaintiffs assert six claims against WWE: Fraudulent Concealment; Fraud by Omission; Negligent Misrepresentation; Fraudulent Deceit; Negligence; and Medical Monitoring.
- Consolidated actions include Singleton/LoGrasso (SAC), McCullough/Sakoda/Wiese (MAC), and Haynes (HAC); forum clauses and venue transfers led to Connecticut as the chosen forum.
- WWE moves to dismiss on limitations, duty, and merits grounds; Haynes argues Oregon law should apply, others seek Connecticut law.
- Court applies Connecticut law for Haynes and analyzes tolling and repose doctrines, ultimately dismissing most claims but allowing limited fraud-by-omission claims by Singleton and LoGrasso.
- Key factual issues concern the timing of discovery, continuing-duty tolling, and whether WWE had a continuing duty to warn about long-term neurological risks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs the claims? | Haynes seeks Oregon law; Singleton/McCullough rely on Connecticut law. | Choice-of-law should follow transfer rules; Connecticut law applies for substantive claims. | Connecticut substantive law applies. |
| Are pre-2012 claims time-barred under Connecticut statutes? | Discovery, continuation of conduct tolling, and fraudulent concealment toll limitations. | Pre-2012 claims barred by 52-584/52-577 repose. | Timeliness issues remain; limitations tolled in part for fraudulent omission; some claims denied as time-barred. |
| Does WWE owe a duty of care to protect wrestlers from long-term injuries? | WWE had ongoing duty via Wellness Program and enhanced knowledge of risks. | No duty beyond ordinary care; Jaworski limit applies; no evolving duty shown. | Duty exists only plausibly; negligence claims dismissed for lack of duty under Connecticut law. |
| Are the fraud-based claims sufficiently pled under Rule 9(b)? | Fraud by omission, deceit, and misrepresentation pled with specificity and intent. | Claims fail for lack of particularity and failure to plead fraud elements. | Negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent deceit claims dismissed; fraud by omission survives for Singleton/LoGrasso at this stage. |
| Can medical monitoring be pursued as a separate claim? | Medical monitoring damages recoverable where actionable injury exists. | Medical monitoring is not an independent CT state cause of action. | Medical monitoring as independent claim is dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lagassey v. State, 268 Conn. 723 (Conn. 2004) (defines actionable harm for discovery rule purposes)
- Jaiguay v. Vasquez, 287 Conn. 323 (Conn. 2008) (conflicts of law conflict of laws substantial relationship test §145)
- 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 1999) (Restatement §145 approach; choice-of-law factors favor Connecticut)
- Neuhaus v. DeCholnoky, 905 A.2d 1135 (Conn. 2006) (continuing duty tolling in medical context)
- Saggese v. Beazley Co. Realtors, 109 A.3d 1050 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015) (duty to disclose; disclosure open to discovery rule)
- Parola v. Citibank (Dakota) N.A., 894 F.Supp.2d 188 (D. Conn. 2012) (Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud claims)
- Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33 (Conn. 2005) (fraud/negligent misrepresentation standards)
- Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399 (Conn. 1997) (limits on duty in contact sports; Jaworski rule)