Breach Of Contract Lawsuit Against WWE, Vince McMahon Recommended For Dismissal

A lawsuit filed earlier this year against WWE and Vince McMahon over alleged breach of contract has been recommended for dismissal. As you may recall, Dana W. Wiley filed a lawsuit against McMahon and WWE in the summer alleging that McMahon breached an agreement to make him a WWE employee with a $70,000 salary. The handwritten suit further alleged that WWE and McMahon committed “breach of contract and failure to reimbursed a $5,500 “down payment hangout, what app email contract to personal fan meet World Wrestling Entertainment employee Alexia (sic) Bliss.” Wiley, who is currently incarcerated in Pennsylvania, has previously tried to sue McMahon before alongside members of DX and the nWo, claiming he had a fair use contract for the trademarks of those groups in 1995.

According to PWInsider, US Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge recommended in a filing on December 13th that the suit be dismissed. The filing states the following:

“Plaintiff’s allegations are both incredible and improbable. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at SCI Forest. While he claims to have an enforceable contract with Defendant, he does not state when the purported contract at issue was made. Moreover, any claim that he was offered an employment contract for $70,000 per month is implausible whether or not he was incarcerated when a contract with Defendant was allegedly formed. Given Plaintiff’s criminal background, a matter of public record and of which the Court takes judicial notice , any suggestion that he would be paid at a yearly salary of $840,000 is far-fetched at best.

The terms of the rest of the alleged contract are, simply put, indecipherable. It is impossible to determine the nature of a contract described as a “hangout, what app email contract” to meet Alexia Bliss, a WWE employee. Further, while not identified as a separate claim, any assertion that the CEO of WWE conspired to have Plaintiff arrested for attempted homicide and aggravated assault in New Castle, Pennsylvania in order to destroy evidence about the purported contract is patently frivolous.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit’; ‘wholly insubstantial’; ‘obviously frivolous’; ‘plainly unsubstantial’; or ‘no longer open to discussion.’”

Even if Plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous, they are still subject to dismissal. First, although Plaintiff appears to rely on the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction, he does not identify any copyright or trademark at issue or state a claim under either statute. Similarly, while he also references the Fifth Amendment as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, he does not assert any facts that could support a Fifth Amendment claim. As a review of the Complaint demonstrates, he is asserting a breach of contract claim only, and as stated in his conclusion, is seeking damages only for breach of contract.

Thus, there is no federal question that has been asserted here, and therefore, no basis for subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does the Complaint plead any facts that suggest that diversity of citizenship exists as Defendant’s state of residence is not identified. Absent Plaintiff’s implausible allegation about a promise of a $70,000 per month employment contract, the only amount in dispute is $5,500. This does not meet the $75,000 threshold required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1332. Consequently, there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, even if a plausible, intelligible, and rational one had been pleaded. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed.”