Back in June of this year, just days before CM Punk (whose real name is Phil Brooks) was to enter the UFC Octagon for his second professional MMA bout at UFC 225, he scored a victory of another kind. That victory arose out of a lawsuit filed against Brooks and fellow former WWE wrestler Colt Cabana (whose real name is Scott Colton) by WWE doctor Christopher Amann.

The lawsuit alleged that on an episode of Coltonís podcast, on which Brooks appeared as a guest, the two discussed the numerous reasons that Brooks decided to leave WWE. Brooksí leaving was a big hit for the company as Brooks was one of its biggest stars. Brooks detailed the many reasons he decided to leave, and included in his description faulty medical treatment as it relates to Ammanís diagnosis of a potentially serious medical condition that could have killed Brooks. As with most doctors, particularly high-profile ones with a strong reputation, Amman didnít like that. So he sued Punk and Colton for defamation. The case went to trial and the defendants won. But they did so at the price of extremely expensive attorneys. According to Colton, Brooks promised to cover Coltonís legal fees. But after the trial, as their relationship seemingly soured, Brooks did not follow up on his promise. Upset, Colton sued Brooks on August 8, alleging that Brooks breached their agreement and committed fraud. So is Colton likely to prevail? Not on these claims.

Firstly, in order to prove a breach of contract claim, Colton will have to prove that in consideration of Brooksí agreeing to pay for his legal fees, Colton changed his position and acted in some way that he otherwise would not have (for any contract to be valid, each party must ďgive something up,Ē such as not being involved in the lawsuit in this particular case).

Here, Colton would have to argue that he became involved in the lawsuit because Brooks promised to pay his legal fees. But Colton was a defendant in the lawsuit, not a plaintiff. He had to hire lawyers and respond to the Complaint anyway. He had no choice because he was the one sued, not the plaintiff bringing the lawsuit. So he cannot argue that he was involved in the lawsuit because Brooks agreed to pay for his legal fees. He could also try to argue that he would have hired cheaper lawyers if Brooks did not agree to pay his legal fees, but that would be tough to prove.

In addition, to prove fraud, Colton will have to show that Brooks, in telling Colton that heíd pay for Coltonís legal fees, acted with intent to deceive. That will be tough to show as well. After all, it does sound like Brooks was just telling a friend that he would help him out in a time of need. Thatís generally not illegal, even if you donít follow up on that promise.

In light of the above, it does look like, unlike in the Octagon, Brooks will go undefeated in the courtroom and prevail once again.