Attorneys for Mark Hunt have filed its opposition to Zuffa’s Motion to Dismiss its lawsuit. It rejects the motion and provides more information on Hunt’s damages.

A footnote to the opposition brief notes that Brock Lesnar has not accepted service of the lawsuit since he resides in Saskatchewan, Canada and will not accept service.

Brock Lesnar not yet served in #MarkHuntvsUFC lawsuit. You have to think they find him at #WrestleMania right? pic.twitter.com/6ncLhzrK7f — Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) March 23, 2017

Taking issue with the UFC’s characterization that Hunt’s lawsuit is speculative at best, Hunt’s attorneys state that the New Zealand heavyweight has actual damages despite the fact that this is not the standard for dismissal in a Motion to Dismiss. Hunt’s attorneys aregue that the UFC and Dana White are seeking Hunt to prove his claims at this stage of the lawsuit but the standard for a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment differ.

Among the issues of note in the lengthy response, Hunt’s attorneys note that he is the owner of a clothing brand, Juggernaut, and his loss impacts his brand. The opposition brief plainly states that losing is bad for business as despite the UFC’s assertions that Hunt’s damages are merely speculative, Hunt’s claims are real.

One of Hunt’s arguments is that his loss has hurt sales of his Juggernaut clothing brand. #MarkHuntvsUFC pic.twitter.com/9tDAsxJCaV — Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) March 23, 2017

As another example, Hunt claims that his contract with the UFC has a clause which grants a step up in pay from $850,000 to $1,000,000 in title fights. Although his contract is lodged as an exhibit to his Complaint, that part of the lawsuit is sealed from the public’s view.

Hunt’s attorneys cites a clause in his contract where he has lost the opportunity to make $1M in title fights #MarkHuntvsUFC pic.twitter.com/rK8yFAuOou — Jason Cruz (@dilletaunt) March 23, 2017

In its conclusion, Hunt’s attorneys request that if a the Court finds in favor of the UFC and White that it have a right to amend its Complaint which may be done pursuant to the court rules.

The hearing is set for May 15, 2017.

Opposition to MTD by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

The opposition goes on to debunk the arguments made by the UFC in its brief. Reading the section on Hunt’s contract claims, its hard to decipher whether that clause in his contract is based on title fights in which he is a challenger or if he becomes a champion. Due to its vagueness, it might be the latter. As for his claim that his brand would be diminished, this may be true. It also might not be true. However, as Hunt’s attorneys point out the allegation is concrete enough to survive a Motion to Dismiss. After discovery, and a Motion for Summary Judgment, that might not be the case. MMA Payout will keep you posted.