It has been noted that a peculiar lawsuit filed in June against Vince McMahon and WWE in the United States District Court of The Western District of Pennsylvania, brought by an incarcerated individual named Dana W. Wiley. It has reportedly been recommended for dismissal as of December 13, according to PWInsider.com.
The handwritten lawsuit alleges that McMahon violated an agreement with Wiley to employ him at WWE with a monthly salary of $70,000. It further asserts that WWE and McMahon breached a contract and failed to reimburse a $5,500 “down payment hangout, what app email contract” related to a personal meeting with World Wrestling Entertainment employee Alexa Bliss.
In the lawsuit, Wiley claims that McMahon discriminated against him after Wiley’s arrest and charges for attempted homicide and aggravated assault against law enforcement in New Castle, Pennsylvania, on October 22, 2022.
Wiley alleges that the United States Secret Service and Pennsylvania State Police confiscated his phone and property in a conspiracy to obstruct and destroy evidence related to emails and texts from WWE employee Alexa Bliss.
In a ruling dated December 13, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge commented on the lawsuit as follows:
“The allegations made by the Plaintiff are highly improbable and incredible. The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at SCI Forest. Although he claims to have an enforceable contract with the Defendant, he fails to specify when this alleged contract was formed. Furthermore, the assertion that he was offered a monthly salary of $70,000, whether incarcerated or not when the supposed contract was made, is highly implausible. Given the Plaintiff’s criminal history, which is a matter of public record and recognized by the Court, the notion that he would be offered an annual salary of $840,000 appears far-fetched at best.
The terms of the alleged contract are incomprehensible, described as a “hangout, what app email contract” to meet WWE employee Alexa Bliss. Additionally, any claim that WWE’s CEO conspired to have the Plaintiff arrested for attempted homicide and aggravated assault to destroy evidence regarding the purported contract is frivolous.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that federal courts lack the authority to entertain claims that are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,’ ‘wholly insubstantial,’ ‘obviously frivolous,’ ‘plainly unsubstantial,’ or ‘no longer open to discussion.’
The Plaintiff’s claims can still be dismissed even if they are not frivolous. He cites the Copyright Act and the Lanham Act for subject matter jurisdiction but fails to identify any relevant copyright or trademark or state a claim under either statute.
Furthermore, he mentions the Fifth Amendment as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, but provides no facts to support a Fifth Amendment claim. It is clear from his Complaint that he is solely alleging a breach of contract and seeking damages only for this breach of contract.
Consequently, there is no federal question here, and thus, no basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Furthermore, the Complaint does not present facts suggesting diversity of citizenship, as the Defendant’s state of residence is not specified. Setting aside the implausible claim of a $70,000 per month employment contract, the dispute only involves $5,500.
This amount falls short of the $75,000 threshold required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, there is no basis for subject matter jurisdiction for the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, even if it had been pleaded in a plausible, intelligible, and rational manner. For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed.”
Wiley, who was sentenced to a prison term of five to twenty years for armed robbery on May 1, 1995, sought $6 million for breach of contract and the reimbursement of all legal fees in his lawsuit. While the suit has not yet been officially dismissed, indications suggest that this is the likely outcome.
