Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Vince McMahon, WWE, WWE parent company TKO Group, and Linda McMahon all filed Motions today before the U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) to dismiss the lawsuit brought by five former ring boys who worked for the then-World Wrestling Federation while underage in the 1980s and 1990s, alleging the company and the McMahon failed to protect them from being abused by the late Mel Phillips, who worked as a ring announcer and oversaw the ring crew.
Vince McMahon's motion argues that the Court has no "such jurisdiction here. As a nonresident who is not domiciled in Maryland, there is no general personal jurisdiction over McMahon, and Plaintiffs fail to plead any facts to satisfy Maryland’s long-arm statute or the due process requirements necessary to assert specific personal jurisdiction over McMahon. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not specify a single act or omission—tortious or otherwise—committed by McMahon in Maryland." It also argues that since McMahon lived in Connecticut, they have no way to establish that McMahon could have lived in Maryland and fall under the Court's jurisdiction. He also argues that the lawsuit fails to state a claim against him, therefore it should it be dismissed. He also argues that none of the Plaintiffs claimed they have met him, with the exception of one, who did not meet him in Maryland.
McMahon's motion notes, "The Complaint likewise neglects to plead a general duty of care that McMahon purportedly owed to Plaintiffs. To owe a general duty, the complainants must allege facts establishing that their injuries were “reasonably foreseeable” given the defendant’s prior knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the injury. Here, Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that McMahon had knowledge, constructive or otherwise, that Mel Phillips (“Phillips”), a nonparty who has been deceased for more than a decade, posed a danger before the Plaintiffs allege that they were abused. Plaintiffs thus fail to properly plead that their injuries were reasonably foreseeable. The Complaint attempts to manufacture such knowledge by spouting a broad catalog of negative press, unfounded opinions, speculation, and multi-level hearsay from a hodgepodge of characters (many of whom are deceased). These accounts expound predominantly upon unrelated alleged scandals from the past thirty years of World Wrestling Entertainment, LLC’s (“WWE”) history—all of which post-date the alleged conduct by Phillips in this case. To the extent that a limited number of the allegations arguably imply such knowledge in the requisite timeframe, they lack the factual support, plausibility, consistency, and definiteness required to state a claim."
The WWE and TKO Group filing noted they were moving "to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Neither WWE nor TKO is subject to personal jurisdiction in Maryland as to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead a negligence claim against either WWE or TKO. Defendants WWE and TKO incorporate by reference the accompanying memorandum setting forth the reasoning and authorities in support of the motion"
WWE and TKO also argued, "Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they are former volunteers who were invited by a now-deceased ring announcer named Mel Phillips to attend, and asked to assist with errands for, wrestling shows, some of which occurred in Maryland. Plaintiffs further allege that Phillips sexually abused them. They claim Defendants should be held liable to them based on Defendants’ allegedly negligent hiring, training and retention of Phillips. Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed because neither WWE nor TKO is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court and, in any event, Plaintiffs do not properly allege the existence of any legally cognizable duty of the Defendants to sustain their negligence claims."
The filing also argued:
"Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety against TKO and WWE for three main reasons:
First, Plaintiffs fail to plead that WWE or its affiliate TKO is liable under any theory of successor liability—a necessary predicate since the alleged conduct at issue occurred when Phillips was allegedly employed by a now-nonexistent entity, World Wrestling Federation (“WWF”), during the 1980s. Where, as here, the plaintiffs’ claims are predicated on the alleged conduct of an alleged predecessor entity, the complaint must plead both (i) an exception to the general rule of successor non-liability and (ii) facts supporting the invocation of that exception. The Complaint here fails on both fronts as to both TKO and WWE.
Second, neither TKO nor WWE is subject to personal jurisdiction in Maryland as to the claims asserted in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Plaintiffs do not allege that WWF was incorporated or maintained a principal place of business in Maryland, or that it was otherwise “at home” in Maryland. Nor could they. Likewise, neither TKO nor WWE is incorporated or has its principal place of business in Maryland and, by extension, neither is “at home” in Maryland. Additionally, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over TKO or WWE is not authorized by Maryland’s long-arm statute and would not comport with due process because Plaintiffs have failed to show that WWF (or TKO or WWE) purposefully established minimum contacts in Maryland such that either TKO or WWE should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Maryland for the claims asserted in the Complaint.
Finally, even if Plaintiffs could overcome these jurisdictional deficiencies, the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to plead a negligence claim, a necessary element of which is the existence of a legally cognizable duty. No facts are alleged here to make a sufficient showing of such a duty. To the contrary, Plaintiffs rely almost entirely on allegations that Defendants should have known of Phillips’s alleged wrongdoing based on alleged conduct postdating Phillips’s actions vis-à-vis Plaintiffs here or that concern individuals other than Phillips. And the handful of allegations that arguably precede the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims fail to plausibly plead that TKO or WWE was, or should have been, aware of Phillips’s alleged conduct."
McMahon's filing also responds to his alleged knowledge of Mel Phillips' actions:
"Plaintiffs allege that Phillips was once spotted in a car performing a sexual act on a young boy, and that McMahon was told about it.
Plaintiffs, themselves, do not have any personal knowledge of this supposed incident— rather, they allege that in 1992, after the Ring Boys scandal came to light, two wrestlers (both since deceased) alleged that they heard that it had happened.
According to the Complaint, one of the wrestlers retroactively claimed that he was present at the venue the night of the alleged incident; Plaintiffs fail to mention, however, that in the same TV appearance, the wrestler admitted that he did not personally see the alleged act, observe anyone reporting it to McMahon, or hear whatever was purportedly told to McMahon. The other wrestler did not even work for the WWE in 1982-1983 when this incident allegedly took place.
Plaintiffs cannot plausibly claim that their alleged injuries were rendered “reasonably foreseeable” based entirely on unsupported allegations made by two deceased nonparties, both of whom had their own grievances against the McMahons and the WWE, as to an event they did not witness, and on which they offered conflicting, unspecified details placed vaguely into an expansive timeframe of a number of years from a decade prior. McMahon has consistently and vehemently denied those allegations for 30-plus years, and there is no basis in law or fact for the Court to credit them.
Plaintiffs’ remaining notice allegations fare no better. Plaintiffs allege that in 1992, McMahon “confessed to New York Post columnist, Phil Mushnick, that he and Ms. McMahon knew of Phillips’s ‘peculiar and unnatural interest’ in boys for years before they temporarily fired him for it in 1988.” This allegation overreaches and misrepresents the Complaint’s own sources: Mushnick’s March 1992 New York Post article (which did not attribute McMahon’s supposed knowledge to any specific year), and Mushnick’s 1993 deposition (in which he merely claimed that McMahon had known “for some time”). Plaintiffs cannot brandish Mushnick’s tabloid soundbite ad nauseam throughout the Complaint and misattribute it to earlier and earlier timeframes in a contradictory and conclusory fashion to gin up a plausible claim. See, e.g., (alleging that McMahon “admitt[ed] that he was aware, at least as early as the 1980s, that Phillips had a “peculiar and unnatural interest in young boys”); (alleging that “Defendants’ admission of knowledge” of Phillips’s “peculiar and unnatural interest” in young boys “pre-dated Phillips’s abuse of Plaintiffs in this case”) (emphasis added). The Court need not accept as true pleadings that “are contradicted either by statements in the complaint itself or by documents upon which its pleadings rely, or by facts of which the court may take judicial notice.” For these reasons, Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege McMahon had actual or constructive knowledge prior to the alleged abuse in this case, a legal requirement to establish that their injuries were reasonably foreseeable such that any duty could have been owed to them."
The WWE/TKO filing argues that the claims against Vince McMahon fail to state their case against him as the WWE (WWF) owner at the time and that the Plaintiffs have a "Failure to Plausibly Plead a Successor Liability Theory", arguing that by law, in the Fourth Circuit, “a corporation that acquires assets of another does not also acquire its liabilities, except where: (1) the successor expressly or impliedly agrees to assume the liabilities of the predecessor; (2) the transaction may be considered a de facto merger; (3) the successor may be considered a ‘mere continuation’ of the predecessor; or (4) the transaction is fraudulent.” They also argue that The Plaintiffs have made "barebones" statements about WWE under TKO Group being the same entity and that they have not proven that to be the case - and that the very lawsuit filing itself proves that neither World Wrestling Entertainment, LLC nor TKO existed during the time period where the allegations took place. They are also arguing that like Vince McMahon, the court doesn't hold any jurisdiction over their company and that the lawsuit doesn't provide enough detail to prove the company "deliberately engaged in significant activities or continuing obligations in, or directed at, Maryland" in order for the Court to hold domain over the company.
In addition, Linda McMahon's Motion also argues that the Court fails to have jurisdiction over her and that McMahon renting an apartment in Maryland from 1970-1972 is not enough to warrant jurisdiction as she left Maryland "50 years ago." It also noted that in the course of her WWE employment, she may have held a license in 2004 to appear as a "second" at ringside but that would have expired the following year. The Motion also argues that the Plaintiffs have not done enough to prove she would fall under Maryland jurisdiction, that none of their allegations "rise" as a result of any activity from Linda in Maryland, that forcing her to defend herself in Maryland would "burden" her and would "not be constitutionally reasonable" and that litigating the case in Maryland isn't even convenient for the Plaintiffs as several of them are as far as Florida in terms of their residence, that the lawsuit fails "to adequately plead any duty of care owed to them by Ms. McMahon", that the lawsuit does not "specifically alleges an employment relationship with WWE, let alone with Ms. McMahon." (as the claim is they had that relationship and were paid by or given tickets to WWF events by Phillips), that they fail to show that Linda could have foreseen anything.
The Motion from Linda McMahon notes, "To be clear, Ms. McMahon does not concede that she was Phillips’s employer. But if Plaintiffs are unable to establish a duty owed to them by WWE arising from the alleged foreseeability of Phillips’s misconduct while employed by WWE, they certainly cannot establish such a duty owed to them by Ms. McMahon."
The Linda McMahon Motion also argues that the Plaintiffs "allege nothing to suggest that Ms. McMahon—or WWE, for that matter—stood in loco parentis with minors who assisted in ring setup for wrestling shows. Plaintiffs do not (and could not) allege that while at WWE events, Ms. McMahon exercised any control over them. “Unlike the situation with children who must attend school,” any minors who attended WWE events could “leave the event at any time without sanction” and without Ms. McMahon “having any right to stop them.” "
The Motion also argued that "The Plaintiffs’ allegations in this case, to the extent they involve alleged sex abuse in Maryland, allege that Phillips abused them after hours and in locations outside the control of WWE. Much of the abuse Plaintiffs claim to have suffered occurred at hotels, in cars, and during trips that Plaintiffs do not allege bore any direct connection to WWE activities. Any duty of care owed to Plaintiffs by virtue of their presence at WWE events would not extend to acts occurring after those events had taken place, and at locations removed from the sites of the WWE shows. And, moreover, there is no allegation that any of the alleged acts occurred at times and places when Ms. McMahon was in a position to control Mr. Phillips or had assumed responsibility for the care of the Plaintiffs."
Linda McMahon's Motion also argued, "In addition, this Court should dismiss any portions of Plaintiffs’ claims premised on alleged negligent hiring or supervision of Terry Garvin or Pat Patterson. The Complaint alleges that Garvin and Patterson committed acts of abuse. But Plaintiffs do not plead, with any specificity, that Garvin or Patterson abused these Plaintiffs. The existence of an injury, like the existence of a duty, is an indispensable element of any negligence claim."
The Plaintiffs would be given a chance to respond to the Motion, and then the Court would decide whether to dismiss some (or all) of the complaints.
Whatever survives that ruling would then move forward, letting the arguments around the case play out over the course of a civil trial....unless there is a settlement made.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
