Case 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH Document 100 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 5

1 CHRISTINA M. DENNING, ESQ. (CA Bar No. 211137)

2 denningc@higgslaw.com
SCOTT J. INGOLD, ESQ. (NV Bar No. 11818)
3 ingolds@higgslaw.com
JOSEPH A. GONNELLA, ESQ. (CA Bar No. 306619)
4
gonnellaj@higgslaw.com
5 HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP
401 West A Street, Suite 2600
6
San Diego, CA 92101-7913
7 T: 619.236.1551
F: 619.696.1410
8
9 JAMES F. HOLTZ, ESQ. (NV Bar No. 8119)
james.holtz@holtzapc.com
10 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES F. HOLTZ
11 1120 Town Center Drive, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89144
12 T: 702.304.1803
13 F: 702.304.1822

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff

MARK HUNT
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
17
MARK HUNT, an individual, Case No.: 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH
18
Plaintiff, MARK HUNTS MOTION FOR
19
v. LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
20 COMPLAINT
ZUFFA, LLC d/b/a ULTIMATE
21 FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP, a
Nevada limited liability company;
22
BROCK LESNAR, an individual;
23 DANA WHITE, an individual; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive,
24

25 Defendants.

26
27
Plaintiff Mark Hunt (Hunt) hereby moves for leave of Court to file his

28
Supplemental Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
H IGGS F LE TCHER &
M ACK LLP 112567-00001 CASE NO.: 2:17-CV-00085-JAD-CWH
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW 8278027.1 MARK HUNTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
SAN DIEGO
 Case 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH Document 100 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 5

1 I.
2 Introduction
3 Hunt filed his First Amended Complaint, (FAC) on June 1, 2017. (ECF
4 No. 64.) The FAC contains claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
5 Organizations Act (RICO), fraud, breach of contract, conspiracy, and related
6 claims. Hunt seeks to supplement the FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
7 Procedure, rule 15, to set out events that happened after the date the FAC was
8 filed.1
9 This action involves defendant Zuffa, LLC, doing business as Ultimate
10 Fighting Championship, (UFC), and its president Dana White, and is primarily
11 focused on their promotion of a mixed martial arts event, UFC 200, featuring
12 Hunt and defendant Brock Lesnar. As set forth in the FAC, however, the
13 Defendants wrongful conduct was not isolated to UFC 200. Hunt alleged a wide-
14 ranging course of conduct common to all claims. The proposed Supplemental
15 Complaint is especially relevant to those claims containing elements of intent or
16 bad faith. Although not required by Rule 15, Hunts supplemental allegations
17 involve the same transactions, occurrences, and events in the original complaint and
18 FAC. Specifically, Hunts proposed Supplemental Complaint will add his
19 unilateral removal (for pretextual reasons) from UFCs November 2017 UFC
20 Fight Night 121 card. The proposed Supplemental Complaint further notes that as
21 a result of Defendants wrongful removal of Hunt from UFC Fight Night 121, Hunt
22 incurred in excess of $100,000.00 in damages for the cost of his pre-fight training
23 camp and related expenses, in addition to the lost fight purse.
24 Leave to file a supplemental complaint is granted with the same liberality as
25 amended pleadings. Here, Hunts request for leave is not made in bad faith or for
26 any improper purpose. Therefore, Hunt respectfully requests leave of Court to file
27

28 1
Hunts supplemental allegations are limited to paragraphs 124 and 125 of the proposed Supplemental Complaint.
H IGGS F LE TCHER &
M ACK LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
1
SAN DIEGO 112567-00001
8278027.1
 Case 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH Document 100 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 5

1 his proposed Supplemental Complaint.

2 II.
3 Discussion
4 On motion and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party
5 to serve a supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that
6 happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
7 The purpose of a supplemental pleading is to provide complete relief in one action
8 and to avoid the cost, delay, and waste of separate actions which must be separately
9 tried and prosecuted. Veneman v. J.P. Morgan Chase and Co., No. 3:10-CV-0394-
10 LRH-VPC, 2011 WL 2183139, at *12 (D. Nev., June 3, 2011) (citing Keith v. Volpe,
11 858 F.2d 467, 473 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted). In considering a motion for
12 leave to file a supplemental pleading, a court considers the same factors considered
13 in a motion to amend. Veneman, 2011 WL 2183139 at *1-2. Thus, leave of court
14 should be given when justice so requires and when there is no undue delay, bad faith,
15 or dilatory motive on the part of the moving party. Id. (citations omitted).
16 Here, Hunt requests leave to file a supplemental complaint to add factual
17 allegations supporting existing claims. Among these supplemental allegations are
18 defendant UFC and Whites retaliatory and pretextual removal of Hunt from UFC
19 Fight Night 121 for medical reasons. Defendants were aware that Hunt was
20 medically cleared prior to removing him from UFC Fight Night 121. Defendants
21 purported medical reasons for removing Hunt were pretextual, and Defendants
22 routinely permit fighters with similar or more severe ailments to compete. Hunt also
23 alleges that he incurred in excess of $100,000.00 in damages as a direct result of the
24 wrongful removal from UFC Fight Night 121, which was incurred after the filing of
25 his original complaint and FAC. A copy of the proposed Supplemental Complaint
26 has been provided to the Court and all parties.
27 Hunt further acknowledges Defendants pending motions to dismiss and
28 submits that further briefing is unnecessary unless requested by the Court. The
H IGGS F LE TCHER &
M ACK LLP 112567-00001
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW 8278027.1
2 CASE NO.: 2:17-CV-00085-JAD-CWH
MARK HUNTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
SAN DIEGO
 Case 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH Document 100 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 5

1 supplemental allegations are limited in scope and the allegations simply provide
2 notice of: (1) further intentional, bad faith conduct consistent with Hunts existing
3 claims; and (2) further damages arising from Defendants fraud, RICO scheme, and
4 contractual breaches (which damages were reasonably foreseeable at the time of
5 contracting). With a pending dispositive motion, the Court may consider the
6 supplemental pleading together with the original/amended complaint. See e.g.,
7 Caribe Candy Co. v. Mackenzie Candy Co., 78 F.Supp. 1021, 1022 (N.D. Ohio,
8 1942).
9

10 III.
11 Conclusion
12 For the foregoing reasons, Hunt requests the Court to grant leave of Court to
13 file his proposed Supplemental Complaint.
14

15

16
DATED: December 15, 2017 HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP

17

18 By: /s/ Christina M. Denning

CHRISTINA M. DENNING, ESQ.
19 SCOTT J. INGOLD, ESQ.
20 JOSEPH A. GONNELLA, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
21 MARK HUNT
22

23

24

25

26
27

28
H IGGS F LE TCHER &
M ACK LLP 112567-00001
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW 8278027.1
3 CASE NO.: 2:17-CV-00085-JAD-CWH
MARK HUNTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
SAN DIEGO
 Case 2:17-cv-00085-JAD-CWH Document 100 Filed 12/15/17 Page 5 of 5

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and the Courts Local Rules, the
3 undersigned hereby certifies that on this day, December 15, 2017, a copy of the
4 foregoing document entitled MARK HUNTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
5 SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT was filed and served through the Courts
6 electronic filing system (CM/ECF) upon all registered parties and their counsel.
7

8
9

10
Barbara Lodovice
11 An employee of Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
H IGGS F LE TCHER &
M ACK LLP 112567-00001
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW 8278027.1
4 CASE NO.: 2:17-CV-00085-JAD-CWH
MARK HUNTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
SAN DIEGO