Former Wrestler Argues Against WWE Forum Shopping in Concussion Suit

Posted by

On Friday, October 30, 2015, retired professional wrestler “Billy Jack” Haynes filed a supplemental brief in a Connecticut federal courthouse in opposition to a motion filed by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) concerning which law should be applied in litigation. Haynes originally brought suit in Oregon against the WWE to recover for concussion-related injuries he sustained while wrestling for the company and which have continued to affect him well into retirement. Haynes’ suit was consolidated with a number of similar actions brought by former wrestlers against the WWE and was transferred to U.S. District Court in Connecticut, where WWE is headquartered.

In a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant earlier this year, the WWE argues that Haynes’ and the other wrestlers’ claims are time-barred under Connecticut law, as they were not filed within the three year statute of limitations period pertaining to personal injury suits. And because Oregon has a more flexible period to file an action like this, the WWE wants Connecticut law to apply to Haynes, making it more likely for his action to be dismissed.

In Haynes’ supplemental brief, however, he argues that not only is Connecticut law not the appropriate governing law for the court to determine if or when his claims would be restricted, but even if Connecticut law did apply, his action would not be time-barred regardless. According to Haynes, before the case was transferred to the consolidated action in Connecticut, the WWE had the opportunity to dispute that Oregon law was inappropriate while arguing on a motion to dismiss in Oregon District Court, yet chose not to raise the argument. Rather, the WWE told the transferor court that Oregon law would apply even if the case was moved to Connecticut with the other concussion suits. While the Oregon Court did not rule on the applicability of which state law was to be applied, it recognized the truth in the WWE’s statement that Oregon law should apply.

Further, Haynes’ argues that Oregon law should apply because it is his home state, the relationship between the parties was negotiated in Oregon, he performed under the contract in Oregon, and that he was injured in Oregon. And as there was no forum selection clause explicitly written into the employment contract he signed with defendant, Haynes’ believes it would be inappropriate for the Court to rule in favor of the WWE in trying to shop for a more favorable selection of underlying law at this stage of litigation.

But even if Connecticut law applies, Haynes does not believe that his action is time-barred as a matter of law, arguing that concussive symptoms may not manifest themselves for many years after the original injury occurs, and until they manifest, a plaintiff has no cognizable legal claim to bring. It was not until recently that Haynes became aware of the possible injuries and their potential complications that he suffered while wrestling for the WWE, even though he last performed with the company in 1988.

Incidentally, the WWE also filed a motion on the same day to temporarily stay discovery in the consolidated concussion suit, at least until the court rules on its pending motion to dismiss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.