Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in affirming summary judgment on battery and fraud claims involving performance-enhancing drugs in mixed martial arts, and whether the enforcement of a prevailing-party fee provision violates public policy

Firstly, did the Ninth Circuit err in affirming summary judgment on the Petitioner's battery and aiding-and-abetting battery claims by holding that consent to a regulated mixed martial arts (MMA) bout under Nevada law extends to fighting an opponent using drugs (PEDs), contrary to Kuchta v. Heller, 466 P.3d 534 (Nev. 2020), and implicating national concerns about athlete safety in regulated sports? Secondly, did the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of summary judgment on the Petitioner’s fraud and civil conspiracy claims, requiring more definitive evidence than Nevada’s typical “slight” evidentiary standard, create a circuit split with the First, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits’ lenient standards for surviving summary judgment and violate the Petitioner’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial? Further, substantial documentary evidence exists and exceeds the lenient standards, had been referred to in the ninth circuit (9th, Cir. Nov. 20, 2025) and stipulated as indeed existing (9th. Cir. Apr, 2025). Thirdly, does the enforcement of the Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement’s (PARA) prevailing-party fee provision, imposing $390,605.00 in attorneys’ fees and $56,751.05 in costs, violate public policy under Nevada law by chilling meritorious litigation, raising a question of national importance about access to justice in adhesion contracts? 1 1