Sow uxa an eun ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 copy WILLIAM M. CROSBY (SBN: 49357) CONT SRIRE Pike. 13522 Newport Avenue, Suite 201 sugetin Ca Sa Tustin, CA 92780-3707 Telephone: (714) 544-2493 MAY 24 2016 Facsimile: (714) 544-2497 rer Email: werosby@williamcrosbylaw.com Cater, Exacutve Oca Sec Gave DePUY Attorney for Plaintiff By Gri ZACHERY LIGHT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT poe21583 ZACHERY LIGHT, CASE NO. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC v. POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMAND BELLATOR SPORT WORLDWIDE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company VIACOM INC., a Delaware corporation; DOES I through X, inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiff alleges: SUMMARY OF CLAIMS 1. This is an action for damages by plaintiff against defendants based on an egregious bad faith course of conduct toward plaintiff due to plaintiff’s having protested certain illegal practices jeopardizing the health and safety of professional fighters and mixed martial artists all for defendants’ profit and financial gain. As a result plaintiff was shunned, harassed, slandered, and demeaned in an attempt to discredit and sabotage plaintiff. Consequently, plaintiff was 1 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMANDS cw ra auevn i 12 13 14 15 16 q7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 forced to go on an extended medical leave and was thereafter wrongfully terminated when he attempted to return from such medical leave. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including economic damages for past and future loss of earnings and benefits, general damages for emotional distress and reputational harm, and punitive damages. PARTIES 2. At all times herein mentioned plaintiff ZACHERY LIGHT (hereinafter "plaintif£") was and is a resident of the County of Riverside, State of California. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based on such information and belief alleges that at all times herein mentioned defendant BELLATOR SPORT WORLDWIDE LLC (hereinafter “BELLATOR”) was and is a Delaware limited liability company engaged in the business of promoting and staging mixed martial arts events, with its principal place of business located in the City of Santa Monica, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 4, Plaintiff is further informed and believes and based on such information and belief alleges that at all times herein mentioned defendant VIACOM INC. (hereinafter “VIACOM”) was and is a Delaware corporation engaged ie business as a worldwide entertainment conglomerate conducting business across television, sports, motion picture, and digital media platforms, with its principal place of business located in New York City, New York and authorized to do business and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Ms aA 2 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEVAND2B 24 25 26 27 28 5. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual, or otherwise, of defendants named as DOES I through X, inclusive. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 474, plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to state said defendants’ true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based upon such information and belief alleges that said ‘ictitiously-named defendants are responsible in some manner for the injury and damages to plaintiff as further hereinafter alleged. AGENCY 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that defendants, and each of them, at all times herein mentioned were the agents, employees, servants, joint venturers, and/or co-conspirators of the remaining defendants, and were acting in the course and scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, and/or conspiracy; that defendants, and each of them, were doing the things herein alleged, were the actual and/or ostensible agents of the remaining defendants and were acting within the course and scope of said agency; and that each and every defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent in selecting, hiring, supervising and continuing the employment of each and every defendant as an agent, employee or joint venturer; and/or that said defendants approved, supported, par cipated in, authorized, and/or ratified the acts and/or omissions of said employees, agents, servants, conspirators, and/or joint venturers. WwW A Mh 3 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMANDCera Ane N 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 25 26 27 28 FACTS aintiff's Ba the Mix: tial Arts Indi d His Over Four Years of Noteworthy Performance with Defendant BELLATOR: 7. Prior to his employment with defendant BELLATOR, plaintiff and his siblings had been raised in Iowa with a focused Midwestern work ethic. He had been a three-time All-American freestyle wrestler, a two-time Iowa state champion, and had been featured in Sports Illustrated as an amateur wrestler at Ellsworth Community College in Iowa Falls. Plaintiff was named a college All-American and national finalist. As a professional mixed martial artist, plaintiff competed in 20 mixed martial arts fights for various organizations, including a fight for The Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”). 8. Because of his national caliber wrestling ability and his career as a professional mixed martial artist, in late 2006 plaintifé accepted a job as a trainer for a top-rated fighter, Rob “Razor” McCullough. Plaintiff also became a trainer for Quinton “Rampage” Jackson (“Jackson”), a mixed martial arts world champion. Plaintiff also trained world champion Michael Bisping and heavyweight champion Cheick Kongo (“Kongo”), among others. Plain iff continued intermittently professional fighting on his own behalf until 2011. 9. Due to his positive relationships with a number of key mixed martial arts figures, plaintiff was referred to Bjorn Rebney ("Rebney”), Founder and CEO of defendant BELLATOR. Rebney hired plaintiff as defendant BELLATOR’s Talent Development Manager. Soon thereafter, plaintiff was promoted to Talent Development Director. Following its relocation to California, plaintiff began working out of its Newport Beach office. Thereafter, he performed his job duties competently and conscientiously, earning consistent praise from Rebney 4 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TE (ATION BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMANDee 10 rr 12 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 and other members of defendant BELLATOR’s management. Plaintiff was repeatedly told that he was the company’s “hardest-working and most valued employee.” He received the highest ranking on his annual reviews. 10. During defendant BELLATOR’s busiest periods each year, two 12-week “seasons” and one 3-week “season,” all of which were broadcast on defendant VIACOM’s cable network Spike T , Plaintiff maintained a grueling promotional schedule, traveling for weeks on end throughout the country promoting and ensuring the success of defendant BELLATOR’s mixed martial arts events. He often was unable to return home to see his wife and children, regularly working 18 hour days. He was instrument: in locating, recruiting, and signing fighters for events, matching fights for each event, and promoting the events and its local fighters throughout each local regional athletic community. Plaintiff was exclusively responsible for the sale of tickets through fighters to these events, often selling thousands of tickets per event. Through 2014, plaintiff had sold over $2.5 million in ticket sales, in part through the use of local fighters on consignment. In addition, plaintiff recruited and signed fighters and performed numerous other vital duties for the company. WIACOM's Acquisition of Defendant BELLATOR and the Change In Def. tt BELI ’s Culture Following a Change In Management 11. Defendant VIACOM acquired a controlling stake in defendant BELLATOR in or about January of 2013. In June of 2014, Rebney left the company and was replaced by Scott Coker (“Coker”) as CEO. Thereafter defendant BELLATOR closed its Orange County office and moved its office to the Los Angeles County VIACOM Office in Santa Monica, where plaintiff remained employed until his wrongful 5 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC BOLICY; GURY TRIAL DEMANDS cw rxds He wn i 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 termination. Contemporaneous with this change in management, there was a marked change in defendant BELLATOR’s management practices. Gone were the regular and recurring mandates from prior management to obey and exceed the high standards of adherence to state and national rules and regulations governing mixed martial arts events. The marked change in management practices was also evident by a disregard for well established business protocols in the accounting for consignment tickets and income from events. Plaintiff also noted a lack of communication regarding important issues such as status of upcoming events and fighter contracts. Defendant BELLATOR’s Multiple Violations of Statutes Enacted to Protect the Health and Safety of Mixed Martial Arts Fighters: 12. Beginning in September of 2014, plaintiff became aware of a number of instances in which defendant BELLATOR failed to observe and knowingly disobeyed laws enacted to protect the health and safety of mixed martial arts fighters. California Business and Professions Code, § 18711 requires a me al clearance examination by a licensed physician for participants in a mixed martial arts fight. Plaintiff learned from a reliable source at an event referred to as Bellator 126 in September of 2014, that fighter Ryan Martinez’ ("Martinez”) state- mandated blood and eye medicals submitted to the state of Arizona were admittedly forged. At an event in San Diego referred to as Bellator 131 in November of 2014, plaintiff learned from reliable sources that a number of fighters on the card had submitted California state- required medicals by one Adam Rendon (“Rendon”), who was not a licensed physician, in violation of Business and Professions Code, $$ 18711 and 17500. MT 6 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMANDRot Hee) aon Gt errs tra) 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BELLATOR en’ ardin Forged Medi: eport 13. Approximately 48 hours prior to Martinez’ scheduled fight at Bellator 126, plaintiff promptly reported what he had learned to Rich Chou (“Chou”), defendant BELLATOR’s Vice President of Talent. Chou assured plaintiff that he would follow up and that plaintiff should focus on his job. When plaintiff heard not! g further from Chou, he approached Coker regarding Martinez’ impending fight based on forged medicals, in violation of Arizona law. Coker told plaintiff to “do what Chou told you to do,” without addressing these issues. Thereafter, plaintiff again brought the subject up to Chou. Chou threatened plaintiff with termination if he kept pushing the issue. Plaintiff later learned that after losing his bout, Martinez never resumed his mixed martial arts career. 14. Prior to the Bellator 131 event, plaintiff told Coker that fighters had been suspended for using Rendon to sign their medicals because Rendon was not a licensed physician. Coker told plaintiff, “a lot of people at Bellator are going to lose their jobs next week. Do you want to keep yours?” Coker added, “then stay in your lane and stop making waves!” Fearful of losing his job, plaintiff said nothing further regarding the falsified medical reports. Coker Pressures Plaintiff to Promote Collusive Fights In Violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 15. In the fall of 2014, Coker was aware that two of defendant BELLATOR’s most popular fighters, Jackson and Kongo, were managed by Anthony McGann (“McGann” + Coker disliked McGann and referred to him as a “fucking terrorist.” Coker told plaintiff that there were “huge problems” negotiating new BELLATOR promotional agreements for Jackson 7 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC BOLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMANDSc waa neuen i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 and Kongo. Coker was aware of plaintiff’s long-standing friendship with Kongo and instructed plaintiff to use that friendship as a basis to convince Kongo to fire McGann as his manager. Plaintiff told Coker that in addition to being friends with Kongo, he had also previously worked for McGann and did not want to intentionally interfere with the manager/client relationship that existed between McGann and Kongo. Coker instructed plaintiff to negotiate directly with Kongo to sign a bout agreement which was not consistent with his promotional agreement. Plaintiff was not allowed to see Kongo’s promotional agreement. Kongo told plaintiff that the amount of his compensation in the proposed bout agreement was not correct. Coker specifically told plaintiff that if he wanted to keep his job, he should do what he was told and “get rid of McGann.” In fear of losing his job, plaintiff convinced Kongo to fire McGann and pressured him to sign the bout agreement. 16. The fight under this new bout agreement occurred in September of 2014 against Lavar Johnson at Bellator 123. Kongo was angry upon learning that he would be paid much less than he was contractually entitled to pursuant to his promotional agreement. Plaintiff's relationship with Kongo was permanently ruined. Chou later acknowledged mistakes and agreed to pay Kongo additional sums for the next bout. Plaintiff suffered lasting harm to his reputation in the mixed martial arts community. 17. Coker was also enraged with McGann that Jackson had signed a promotional agreement with the UFC while Coker believed that Jackson was still under contract with defendant BELLATOR - a fact contested by Jackson and McGann. This act on McGann and Jackson’s part was a substantial embarrassment to Coker, as it would mean that defendant 8 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMANDCe a AH eR ON 10 M1 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 BELLATOR’s biggest star was leaving defendant BELLATOR for the UFC. In addition to Jackson, McGann had a number of additional fighters under contract at defendant BELLATOR. Coker told plaintiff to “get the terrorist’s fighters beaten and beaten badly,” thereby allowing Coker to cut ties between defendant BELLATOR and McCann. Plaintiff was required to arrange fights between McGann’s fighters and opponents who would convincingly defeat them. Such outcomes would then enable Coker to have a convenient pretext to terminate McGann’s fighters’ promotional contracts with defendant BELLATOR. Such collusive matches were tantamount to fight fixing and constituted a fraud on ticket buyers, fight patrons, television viewers, advertisers, and the public at large, as well as McGann and the professional fighters he managed. 18. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) whistleblower provisions, employees in privately held subsidiaries of publicly traded companies who assist in an investigation into an employer's violation of SOX are protected from employer retaliation (18 U.S.C. $$, 1513(e) and 1514A(a)). This conduct also violates California Business and Professions Code, § 17500 which proscribes misleading statements concerning professional services. 19. In late 2014 and early 2015, a close friend of Coker, Mike Kogan (“Kogan”), was hired by defendant BELLATOR in an executive capacity. Plaintiff knew that Kogan represented numerous mixed martial arts fighters, many of whom were under professional agreements with defendant BELLATOR. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Kogan was paid management commissions for £ ghters he represented in bouts that occurred with defendant BELLATOR. This was a serious conflict of interest in violation of California Business and Professions Code, §§ 18878, 18897.27, and 9 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUB! © POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMANDa ee 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18897.47, as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 4, § 243. Plaintiff, aware of and concerned about the glaring conflict of interest that existed when an executive of defendant BELLATOR also managed fighters competing for defendant BELLATOR, expressed his strong concerns regarding these conflicts to Chou. Chou responded, “leave it alone, he’s on our team.” Plaintiff’s Communications Regarding an Emplovee of Defendant BELLATOR Driving on a Suspended License: 20. In June of 2014, plaintiff spoke to Coker and Chou regarding an employee of defendant BELLATOR who was continuing to drive defendant BELLATOR’s owned and branded transport vans to transport BELLATOR fighters, fight managers, commission officials and other employees of defendant BELLATOR to and from airports and to various BELLATOR event related locations even though his driver’s license had been suspended due to a DUI. When plaintiff noted that the employee had not stopped driving, he brought the problem again to Coker’s attention. Coker told plaintiff t “stop making waves” and “just do your job.” Plaintiff's Stress-Related Medical Leave and Termination: 21. From September of 2014 through April of 2015, plaintiff experienced increasing anxiety, depression, insomnia, and mental and emotional distress as a result of Coker and Chou’s refusal to follow applicable laws and regulations and by requiring plaintiff to engage in illegal practices as a condition of keeping his job. 22. On April 10, 2015, following the Bellator 136 event at the Bren Events Center in Irvine, California, plaintiff suffered an anxiety attack which resulted in emergency care at a hospital. Plaintiff was medicated and diagnosed with severe depression and 10 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMANDee ee 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 anxiety. Thereafter he was placed on an extended medical leave, prescribed psychoactive medications, and underwent therapy with a physician. 23. Due to his consequent loss in income, plaintiff was forced from his rented home into a small apartment. On March 10, 2016, plaintiff was cleared to return to work without restrictions. By letter of March 17, 2016, plaintiff was advised of his termination and that his job was no longer available. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongful Termination Based on Public Policy Against Defendants BELLATOR and VIACOM) 24, Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 23 of the introductory allegations as if set forth in full. 25. On March 17, 2016, defendants BELLATOR and VIACOM wrongfully terminated plaintiff in violation of a substantial and fundamental public policy, in that defendant BELLATOR, a wholly owned subsidiary controlled by defendant VIACOM, engaged in conduct that required plaintiff to participate in and authorize violations of statutory law based on the Acts and Statutes cited at paragraphs 12 through 20 above. The wrongful conduct of defendants BELLATOR and VIACOM created such intolerable working conditions for plain’ iff that plaintiff was forced to take an extended medical leave. When plaintiff tried to return from such medical leave, he was terminated. Plaintiff was accordingly wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy. 26. As a direct and proximate result of said wrongful termination, plaintiff sustained economic damages for past and future loss of earnings and benefits, according to proof. My 7) COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUSLIC POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMANDCe wan een 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27. As a further direct and proximate result of said wrongful termination, plaintiff sustained general damages for severe mental and emotional distress. 28. Defendants BELLATOR and VIACOM acted with malice and oppression toward plaintiff and with conscious and wanton disregard of plaintiff’s rights, and defendants BELLATOR and VIACOM should therefore be assessed punitive and exemplary damages in sums sufficient to punish them and set an example in view of their respective financial conditions. PRAYER WHEREFORE plaintiff prays judgment against defendants as follows: 1, For economic damages, according to proof; 2, For general damages, according to proof; 3. For punitive damages, according to proof; 4, For costs of suit incurred; and, 5. For such further relief as the Court deems proper. Dated: May 24, 2016 BY a WILLIAM W, CROSBY x Attorney for Plaintiff ZACHERY LIGHT JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff ZACHERY LIGHT hereby demands trial by jury of the above cause. eae ane WILLIAM M. CROSBY ™, Attorney for Plaintiff ZACHERY LIGHT Dated: May 24, 2016 12 COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY; JURY TRIAL DEMAND