Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Josh Gross


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Lowkick


Liver Kick


Caged In


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


Fightlinker


Fightnomics


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


MMA Convert


Fightline


Fight Medicine


CompuStrike


MMA Frenzy


Fighters


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


The Fightworks Podcast


Eddie Goldman


Pro MMA Radio


MMA Torch


Video Corner


Fight Hub


The Fight Nerd


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

Site Meter

« | Home | »

Take Mark Hunt’s legal threats against UFC seriously but don’t fall for the racketeering ploy

By Zach Arnold | October 30, 2016

Print Friendly and PDF

The cliff notes:

Most big game attorneys don’t tell the press what they’re about to do against a major corporation. They do it first and then talk behind the scenes.

Mark Hunt hired an California attorney who specializes in construction & business litigation. But California law is very different than Nevada law and Nevada law is different than Federal law. Especially when it comes to racketeering.

Read the Federal statute on RICO for yourself. In order to file a lawsuit invoking RICO, you have to file at least two causes of action that are on the specified list of COAs available.

Different states have their own version of a racketeering statute. California’s law is called the Control of Profits from Organized Crime Act. Criminal application of that statute allows for confiscation of any ill-gotten gains. It’s list of COAs largely mirrors the federal RICO statute. Nevada is a different story. That state’s racketeering statute includes a larger list of available causes of action to invoke RICO.

The allegations

Fraudulent Concealment: Mark Hunt’s attorney is investigating and alleging that UFC had intentionally let Brock Lesnar fight Mark Hunt at UFC 200 while using steroids in order to make money while Lorenzo Fertitta was selling UFC to Ari Emanuel/WME. Hunt’s attorney alludes to UFC giving Lesnar a pass on a four-month USADA testing window before signing to fight at UFC 200. This is viewed as a hook to demonstrate intent as to why UFC may have not expedited pre-fight USADA drug testing results that revealed a positive test result for Lesnar and that this concealment (omission) of fact from Hunt was used to obtain his services to make millions of dollars.

To prove concealment in Nevada, you have to demonstrate the following:

1) the defendant (UFC) concealed a material fact, 2) the defendant had a duty to disclose this fact, 3) the defendant intentionally concealed the fact to defraud the plaintiff, 4) the plaintiff didn’t know about the fact and would have acted differently given knowledge of the fact, and 5) plaintiff sustained damages as a result of hiding the fact in question.

In order for Hunt to prove fraudulent concealment, he would have to prove that UFC intentionally knew that Lesnar was using steroids and that they were hiding this from Hunt so he couldn’t back out of the UFC 200 fight. It’s one thing to try to demonstrate UFC’s consciousness of guilt regarding the four-month waiver but it’s entirely a different ballgame to prove that UFC intentionally delayed USADA test results showing Lesnar failed a steroid test before the fight.

Negligent or intentional misrepresentation: If you’re going to argue concealment, then you’re arguing intent. Which means intentional misrepresentation is the more likely cause of action. The problem is that the bar is much higher to meet the standard of proving intentional misrepresentation than it is to prove negligent misrepresentation.

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of negligent misrepresentation are: 1) a business or employer 2) supplied false information to the plaintiff in a business transaction 3) which the plaintiff detrimentally relied upon 4) creating liability for the defendant for damages suffered by plaintiff 5) due to a breach of duty to exercise reasonable care or judgment.

(California’s statute is clearer: defendant represented a fact to plaintiff as true but wasn’t and may have honestly believed it was true at the time but had no reasonable grounds to believe in the claim made while intending for the plaintiff to detrimentally rely upon the assertion which caused damages.)

In order for Hunt to prove negligent misrepresentation, he would have to demonstrate that UFC (or USADA by proxy) gave false information regarding Brock Lesnar’s doping before the UFC 200 fight took place and that he was damaged as a result of the false information. He would have to prove that UFC reasonably should have known that Lesnar had failed a drug test or was going to fail a drug test — and this is where the four-month USADA waiver could come into play.

Fraud (obtaining money under false pretenses) and unjust enrichment: Hunt’s attorney is alleging that UFC and drug-using fighters are obtaining money under false pretenses when those fighters in question are receiving ill-gotten gains as a result of their drug usage while the fighters who are clean but lose suffer economic damages because their contracts slash pay for future bouts after losses.

NRS 205.380 defines obtaining money under false pretenses as a person knowingly and designedly by any false pretense obtaining from any other person money with the intent to cheat or defraud the other person.

This cause of action not only sounds like potentially fertile legal ground against UFC but against Brock Lesnar. Hunt’s attorney claims that they are looking into pursuing a lawsuit against Lesnar as well as UFC.

Hold the horses on racketeering

The impact of a racketeering cause of action is simple — treble (triple) damages plus attorney fees. The problem for Mark Hunt is that the alleged causes of actions up above don’t amount to two of the specified causes of actions listed in either the Nevada statute or the Federal RICO statute.

Proving racketeering is extraordinarily difficult in a civil setting. A prominent attorney we talked with on background explained the situation this way:

“Federal courts have extensive pleading standards to even allege [RICO]. If this was added to the anti-trust [case], I could see that. But to take them on in a civil RICO, it’s only good for purposes of PR. State courts hate civil RICO. The predicate acts and racketeering activity generally require criminal behavior. You can mix civil RICO with common law causes of action. However, it can be terribly complex.”

When I asked the attorney if Mark Hunt’s attorney Christina Denning could try to use the Federal racketeering statute to try to get pendent jurisdiction in a Nevada Federal court instead of state court, the attorney confirmed that Nevada’s state racketeering law would apply and there is not exclusive federal subject matter jurisdiction for racketeering claims. Which means a lawsuit against UFC would have to take place in a state court in Las Vegas. Good luck.

The best attorneys don’t go for volume on causes of actions. They go for the path of least resistance to get the desired result. Concealment and unjust enrichment are scary enough.

Topics: MMA, Media, UFC, Zach Arnold | 5 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

5 Responses to “Take Mark Hunt’s legal threats against UFC seriously but don’t fall for the racketeering ploy”

  1. Fan Futbol says:

    Federal courts have jurisdiction over claims brought under federal RICO. Because a federal statue, ie RICO, creates the cause of action, the civil action “arises under” the law of the United States, and thus satisfies 28 USC 1331.

  2. Shady Past says:

    I wonder how Hunt’s comments on the MMA Hour in 2012 are going to affect this.

    “At the end of the day, I don’t give a crap who’s taking what. The steroids are not going to help them when I hit them. Take as much as you like, I don’t care.”

    • Diaz's packed bowl says:

      Hunts not on trial here. The matter at hand is zuffas fraudulent concealment of doping within the ufc. Not Hunts random comments from 4 years ago, did Hunt sign a contract with the UFC saying he doesn’t care about dopers?

      Can you really see zuffa using that comment in defense of their matching Hunt up with 3 or more fighters on PEDs?.
      “Well Hunt said he didnt care if he fights roiders, so that’s what we gave him”.
      Saying that would show intent to conceal on zuffas part.
      Hunt has a good case for the Lesner fight since the ufcs PED program was in effect at the time, but was voided for mr Lesner and his fat sack of cash. The precedent set in other sports doping programs should be carried over to mma and Lesners purse should go to Hunt.

  3. [...] In October of 2016, we previewed what Mark Hunt’s lawsuit would look like and it largely played out as predicted. [...]

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image