MLW Files Motion Against WWE’s Potential Defenses In Lawsuit

MLW made their latest filing in their lawsuit against WWE, providing counterarguments for their potential defenses on Friday, August 25.

As we previously reported here on eWn, WWE filed a motion earlier this month for 12 potential defenses against MLW’s allegations that the Stamford wrestling company violated the Sherman Act regarding anti-trust practices and more.

MLW filed a motion laying out all of WWE’s previously stated potential defenses and providing its own counter-arguments.

MLW’s motion argues that WWE’s defenses are “devoid of facts, and merely reference legal doctrines without providing MLW with ‘sufficient particularity to give Plaintiff fair notice of the basis for the asserted defense.’ Several ‘do not actually constitute affirmative defenses.’”

You can see the responses to WWE’s Affirmative Defenses below:

WWE’s First Defense: The First Amended Lawsuit (FAC) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

MLW Response: “The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because failure to state a claim “is not an actual defense since it simply embodies the contention that Plaintiff will be unable to prove the elements of the claims contained in the Complaint.”

“Moreover, given that the Court has already denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “the Court’s ruling on the sufficiency of the allegations of the [FAC] stands as the law of the case” and precludes WWE’s attempt to raise this argument again as an affirmative defense.”

WWE’s Second Defense: MLW’s claims are barred because MLW lacks antitrust injury or injury in fact.

MLW Response: “The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because it merely asserts a legal conclusion without sufficient particularity. Additionally, lack of injury-in-fact and antitrust injury are not affirmative defenses.”

WWE’s Third Defense: MLW’s equitable claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of unclean hands and in pari delicto.

MLW Response: “The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because “simply stating that a claim fails due to plaintiff’s ‘unclean hands’ is not sufficient to notify the plaintiff what behavior has allegedly given them ‘unclean hands.’”WWE has “allege[d] no supporting facts whatsoever explaining how the [unclean hands] doctrine[] appl[ies]” to MLW.

WWE’s Fourth Defense: MLW’s equitable claims are barred, in whole or in part, based on the doctrines of estoppel, laches, and waiver, as MLW’s claims are based, in part, on actions and events spanning decades.

MLW Response: “The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because it too “lack[s] any facts to support [WWE’s] conclusory allegations. As to estoppel, WWE fails to “set forth either the elements of the doctrine or the facts supporting its application.” As to laches, WWE fails to “articulate how [MLW] engaged in unreasonable delay that prejudiced” WWE. And as to waiver, WWE “fails to point to any facts that would suggest [MLW] ever intended to relinquish a known right or even what the right was that [MLW] supposedly waived.” Moreover, there is no plausible basis for asserting that estoppel, laches, and waiver are relevant to the claims in this case, and WWE has made no attempt to articulate if and how these defenses apply. MLW was not relaunched until 2017, and much of the conduct directed at MLW occurred in 2021. MLW did not delay in seeking redress, but rather timely filed suit in January 2022, after it learned of WWE’s unlawful conduct. Accordingly, this Affirmative Defense should be stricken.”

WWE’s Fifth Defense: MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because it does not have standing to raise those claims.

MLW Response:“The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because it simply parrots a legal conclusion without the requisite factual support to provide notice to the Plaintiff. Additionally, “lack of standing is not an affirmative defense under federal law” because “a plaintiff must plead and ultimately prove standing.” Vizcarra, 2011 WL 4501318, at *2 (citation omitted) (striking lack of standing affirmative defense)”

WWE’s Sixth Defense: MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because WWE’s actions were authorized or permitted under state and/or federal law.

MLW Response:“The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because it is a “bare statement[] reciting mere legal conclusions,” not “pleaded with sufficient particularity to give [MLW] fair notice of the basis for the asserted defense.” Additionally, “[c]ompliance with laws” “is simply a denial of liability,” and therefore is not an actual affirmative defense.”

WWE’s Seventh Defense: If and to the extent that MLW has been damaged, which WWE denies, MLW, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have mitigated its damages but did not and is therefore barred from recovery. Alternatively, any damages sustained by MLW, which WWE denies, must be reduced by the amount that such damages would have been reduced had MLW exercised reasonable diligence in mitigating its damages.

MLW Response: “The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because WWE does not “state what damages could have been mitigated and how [MLW] failed to do so.”

WWE’s Eighth Defense: MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because, to the extent that MLW suffered any injury or incurred any damages as alleged in the FAC, which WWE denies, WWE’s alleged conduct was not the actual or proximate cause of any injury or damage to MLW.

MLW Response: “The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because it simply parrots a legal conclusion without the requisite factual support to provide notice to the Plaintiff. Additionally, this Affirmative Defense is not actually an affirmative defense because it merely advances that MLW has “not met [its] burden of proof” regarding the causation elements of its claims.”

WWE’s Ninth Defense: MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because, to the extent that MLW suffered any injury or incurred any damages as alleged in the FAC, which WWE denies, any such injury or damage was caused and brought about by the acts, conduct, or omissions of individuals or entities other than WWE, and, as such, any recovery herein should be precluded or diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to such other individuals or entities.

MLW Response: “The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because WWE “does not identify any third parties or their acts” which allegedly and alternatively caused MLW’s damages.”

WWE’s Tenth Defense: MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because, to the extent MLW suffered any injury or incurred any damages as alleged in the FAC, which WWE denies, any such injury or damage was caused and brought about by intervening or superseding events, factors, occurrences, conditions, or acts of others, including forces in the marketplace, and not by the alleged wrongful conduct on the part of WWE.

MLW Response: “The Court should strike this Affirmative Defense because WWE “fail[s] to allege any actual intervening or supervening events on which [WWE] base[s] [its] affirmative defense.” Vague inclusion of “forces in the marketplace,” see Answer at 24, does not rise to the level of particularity sufficient to put MLW on notice of the basis of this Affirmative Defense

You can keep up with all your wrestling news right here on eWrestlingNews.com. Or, you can follow us over on our Twitter and Facebook pages.