In an update to our story last year on Billy Jack Haynes' concussion lawsuit against WWE, the company's lawyers (like Jerry McDevitt) have filed a motion to dismiss this action.
Their first argument for dismissal is that "all claims are time barred" (i.e., the statute of limitations have expired). As Haynes hasn't wrestled for WWE since January 1988, there's a very good chance that all claims will be dismissed on this basis alone.
The motion also argues that Haynes' claim of fraudulent concealment of the dangers of concussions should also be thrown out due to its lack of particularity (i.e., he doesn't provide enough relevant details to come close to proving that any fraud took place), and that his other claims are "substantively deficient" too.
In particular, WWE complains that Haynes "does not allege when he was diagnosed with depression or dementia, or even that he has been so diagnosed" and that he "makes no attempt to explain the circumstances under which he discovered that his alleged depression and symptoms of dementia were caused by concussions sustained while performing for WWE 26 years ago".
Finally, the motion argued that as the original lawsuit was filed in Oregon that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over WWE and that the case should be moved to Connecticut if it wasn't dismissed.
According to Dave Meltzer, WWE has already successfully moved some of their other concussion lawsuit to Connecticut, so this step should be a formality:
"WWE has successfully moved to get the lawsuits filed by Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso moved from Pennsylvania to Connecticut. They are also attempting to get the Nelson Frazier and Billy Jack Haynes suits moved to Connecticut. All WWE contracts specially state that any legal action is agreed to be in Connecticut."
One would expect WWE will attempt to use similar "statute of limitations" and "lack of particularity" arguments to get the other lawsuits dismissed too.