SBN 38723) 2 [email protected] Jonathan P
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/07/2020 05:09 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by L. Kulkin,Deputy Clerk 1 KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP LLP Howard Weitzman (SBN 38723) 2 [email protected] Jonathan P. Steinsapir (SBN 226281) 3 [email protected] Suann MacIsaac (SBN 205659) 4 [email protected] Aaron Liskin (SBN 264268) 5 [email protected] Katherine T. Kleindienst (SBN 274423) 6 [email protected] 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor 7 Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone: 310.566.9800 8 Attorneys for Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc., 9 and MJJ Ventures, Inc. 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WESTERN DISTRICT LLP LOOR 12 UMP F 90401 K RD 3 , 13 WADE ROBSON, an individual, Case No. BC 508502 310.566.9850 310.566.9850 SER SER I AX F ALIFORNIA 14 Plaintiff, Assigned to Hon. Mark A. Young, Dept. M • C , OULEVARD B EITZMAN EITZMAN 15 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION ONICA W M vs. AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ILSHIRE 16 JUDGMENT OR, IN THE W 310.566.9800 ANTA S DOE 1, an individual; MJJ PRODUCTIONS, ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY EL 808 T INSELLA INSELLA 17 INC., a California corporation; MJJ ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES; AND K VENTURES, INC., a California corporation; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 18 and DOES 4-50, inclusive, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 19 Defendants. RESERVATION ID: 131078496710 1 20 Submitted Concurrently With Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts 21 and Compendium of Evidence in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 22 Date: February 24 2021 23 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: M 24 Action Filed: May 10, 2013 25 Trial Date: June 14, 2021 26 27 1 The reservation was originally for May 4, 2021, but the hearing was advanced to 28 February 24, 2021 by order of the Court dated December 4, 2020. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 24, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as 4 the matter may be heard, in Department M of the above-entitled Court, 1725 Main Street, Santa 5 Monica, California, Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc., and MJJ Ventures, Inc. (“Defendants” or 6 the “Corporations”), will appear through counsel and move this Court for an order pursuant to 7 Code of Civil Procedure section 437c granting summary judgment against Plaintiff Wade Robson 8 on all causes of action in the Fourth Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”) on the ground that 9 there is no triable issue of material fact, and that the Defendants are entitled to judgment as a 10 matter of law in this civil action for the reasons set out in the attached memorandum of points and 11 authorities, incorporated herein by this reference. LLP LOOR 12 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the grounds for this motion include the UMP F 90401 K RD 3 , 13 following and, to the extent summary judgment of the entire case is not warranted, Defendants 310.566.9850 310.566.9850 SER SER I AX F ALIFORNIA 14 seek summary adjudication on the following issues: • C , OULEVARD B EITZMAN EITZMAN 15 1. All Causes of Action fail as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to ONICA W M ILSHIRE 16 any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants’ allegedly W 310.566.9800 ANTA S EL 808 T INSELLA INSELLA 17 tortious acts or omissions were “a legal cause of the [alleged] childhood sexual assault,” Code Civ. K 18 Proc. §§ 340.1(a)(2) & 340.1(a)(3), in order for the causes of action to come within the scope of 19 subdivisions (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 (and the causes of action 20 are therefore untimely); and/or as required by the elements of the substantive causes of action 21 themselves (all of which require legal causation, i.e., proximate causation). Defendants are 22 therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all Causes of Action in the Complaint. 23 2. The Second through Fifth Causes of Action, all of which are based in negligence, 24 fail as a matter of law because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a 25 rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants had duties of care towards Plaintiff as alleged in 26 the Complaint. Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Second 27 through Fifth Causes of Action in the Complaint. 28 3. The Second Cause of Action for “Negligence” in the Complaint based on the 2 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 negligence per se doctrine fails as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to any 2 material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that any of the pertinent 3 employees of Defendants were mandated reporters under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting 4 Act (CANRA), Penal Code §§ 11166 et seq . in effect at the time. Also, the negligence per se 5 doctrine does not create a duty of care in any event; it only sets the standard of care when duty has 6 first been established independently. There is no duty of care here. Defendants are therefore 7 entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Second Cause of Action in the Complaint. 8 4. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action for “Negligent Retention/Hiring” and 9 “Negligent Supervision” in the Complaint fail as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue 10 as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants had 11 the duty or ability to decline to hire Michael Jackson in the first place, to fire him or to supervise LLP LOOR 12 him. There is also no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact UMP F 90401 K RD 3 , 13 to conclude that the alleged tortious conduct by Jackson against Plaintiff arose out of or was 310.566.9850 310.566.9850 SER SER I AX F ALIFORNIA 14 generated by the employment relationship between Jackson and the Defendants. Defendants are • C , OULEVARD B EITZMAN EITZMAN 15 therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Third and Fourth Causes of Action in the ONICA W M ILSHIRE 16 Complaint. W 310.566.9800 ANTA S EL 808 T INSELLA INSELLA 17 5. The Fifth Cause of Action for “Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, or Educate” fails K 18 as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a 19 rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants had a duty to train, warn or educate Plaintiff, his 20 parents, the authorities, Defendants’ employees, or anyone else about the dangers of sexual abuse 21 generally or about the alleged dangers of Michael Jackson specifically. Defendants are therefore 22 entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Fifth Cause of Action in the Complaint. 23 6. The First Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) 24 fails as a matter of law, because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit 25 a rational trier of fact to conclude that Defendants themselves (as opposed to, allegedly, Michael 26 Jackson personally) engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. Also, this cause of action fails 27 because, as alleged by Plaintiff, it is a claim for “direct perpetrator liability” and is therefore not 28 cognizable under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 (and is therefore untimely). There is no 3 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 triable issue as to any material fact showing otherwise. Defendants are therefore entitled to 2 judgment as a matter of law on the First Cause of Action in the Complaint. 3 7. The Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty fails as a matter of law, 4 because there is no triable issue as to any material fact sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to 5 conclude that Defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff and/or that fiduciary duties 6 were breached. Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Sixth 7 Cause of Action in the Complaint. 8 If the Court finds, for some reason, that there are genuinely disputed issues of material fact 9 as to any of the above issues against one Defendant but not the other, Defendants move for 10 summary adjudication as to those issues in favor of the other Defendant. 11 In addition and in the alternative, Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings as to LLP LOOR 12 each cause of action because the operative Complaint does not, and cannot, allege facts sufficient UMP F 90401 K RD 3 , 13 to constitute valid and timely causes of action for each cause of action. 310.566.9850 310.566.9850 SER SER I AX F ALIFORNIA 14 This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum • C , OULEVARD B EITZMAN EITZMAN 15 of Points and Authorities, the Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, the Compendium of ONICA W M ILSHIRE 16 Evidence (containing the Declarations of John Branca and Jonathan P. Steinsapir, with exhibits), W 310.566.9800 ANTA S EL 808 T INSELLA INSELLA 17 all pleadings on file in this action, and on such other and further written and oral argument as may K 18 be presented at or before the hearing of this matter.