WWE’s response to MLW’s amended lawsuit names several different defenses against the rival company’s allegations.
Pwinsider is reporting that the response is 25 pages and lists 14 potential defenses that WWE may bring up against MLW’s lawsuit.
The filing notes that “WWE asserts the following affirmative defenses on information and belief. In doing so, WWE does not assume any burden of proof, persuasion, or production on such defenses where such burden would otherwise fall on MLW. Additionally, WWE’s affirmative defenses are asserted in the alternative, and none of them constitute an admission of liability or that MLW is entitled to any relief.”
WWE listed the following defenses:
“First Defense
The First Amended Lawsuit (FAC) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Second Defense
MLW’s claims are barred because MLW lacks antitrust injury or injury in fact.
Third Defense
MLW’s equitable claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of unclean hands and in pari delicto.
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.
Fifth Defense
MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because it does not have standing to raise those claims.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eleventh Defense
MLW’s equitable claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any recovery would result in unjust enrichment to MLW.
Twelfth Defense
MLW’s claims for equitable relief are barred because MLW has an adequate remedy at law.
Fourteenth Defense
MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because WWE had legitimate business and/or economic justifications for the conduct at issue.”
