1 THOMAS V. GIRARDI, ESQ. (SBN: 36603) GIRARDI * KEESE 2 1126 WILSHIRE BLVD. LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90017 3 TEL: (213) 977-0211 FAX: (213) 481-1554 4 EBBY S. BAKHTIAR, ESQ. (SBN: 215032) Livingston • Bakhtiar 5 3435 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 1669 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010 6 TEL: (213) 632-1550 FAX: (213) 632-3100 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff: ALF CLAUSEN 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 CASE No.: 19STCV27373 11 ALF CLAUSEN, an Individual, ) ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 12 PLAINTIFF, ) DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP ) SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE; 13 vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 14 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX ) THEREOF; AND SUPPORTING TELEVISION, a Corporation headquartered in ) DECLARATIONS 15 Los Angeles County; TWENTIETH ) CENTURY FOX FILM, a Corporation ) [Filed Concurrently With Declarations 16 headquartered in Los Angeles County; ) of Ebby S. Bakhtiar, Scott Clausen, Alf TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX, INC., a ) Clausen and Birdie Bush; Plaintiff’s 17 Corporation headquartered in Los Angeles ) Separate Volume of Exhibits; and County; FOX MUSIC, INC., a Corporation ) Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections.] 18 headquartered in Los Angeles County; ) GRACIE FILMS, a California Corporation; ) Date : August 5, 2020 19 THE WALT DISNEY CO., a Corporation ) Time : 10:00a.m. headquartered in Los Angeles County; and ) Dept. : 62 20 DOES 1 to 150, Inclusive, ) Trial Date : TBD ) 21 DEFENDANTS.Deadline) [THE HON. JUDGE MICHAEL L. STERN, PRESIDING] 22 23 24 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, DEFENDANTS AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE 25 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 26 Plaintiff ALF CLAUSEN hereby submits this Opposition to Defendants’ anti-SLAPP Special 27 Motion to Strike for Summary Judgement or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication. 28 Defendants’ Motion must be denied pursuant to the following grounds: 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ ANTI-SLAPP MOTION 1 r) Plaintiff was a W-2 Employee, which gives rise to a rebuttable 2 presurnption that Defendants were his employer (Cal. Govt. Code $ J 12928 Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798,826); 4 5 2) Plaintiffs termination does not bear a sufficiently substantial 6 relationship to Defendants' exercise of any rights protected by the 7 anti-SLAPP statute (Wilsonv. C.N.N.,Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871,894); 8 9 3) Plaintiff s job neither bestowed upon him the ultimate authority to 10 determine Defendants' speech nor did it afford him the ability to 11 speak on Defendants' behalf as required by the anti-SLAPP statute ¿. (Wilson v. C.N.N., Inc. (2019)7 Cal.5th 871,896); and F 12 :E V 13 co 14 3) Plaintiff can easily demonstrate that his causes of action against a z 15 Defendants all have minimal merits. c U)F 16 U Z I7 Plaintiff s Opposition to Defendants' anti-SLAPP Motion is based upon the concurrently J l8 filed Memorandum of Points & Authorities; the accompanying Declarations of Ebby S. Bakhtiar, t9 Scott Clausen, Alf Clausen and Roberta "Birdie" Bush; Plaintiff s Separate Volume of Exhibits, 20 Plaintiff s Evidentiary Objections;Deadline and all other matters that may be judicially noticed as well as 21 upon the entirety of the recoLds, files and pleadings in this case and upon all such other and further 22 evidence as may be presented at the hearing for said the Motion. 23 24 Crn nn or er Kprsg ANo 25 KHTIAR 26 2l DATED 2ò By EBBY S. BAKHTIAR, 28 ATTORNEY FOR ALF CLAUS 2 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DBFENDANTS' ANTI-SLAPP MOTION 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 2 I. INTRODUCTION :................................01 3 II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS :................................02 4 III. LEGAL ARGUMENTS :................................07 5 A. DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT MET THEIR INITIAL 6 BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE ADVERSE ACT WAS A SLAPP–PROTECTED ACTIVITY. :................................07 7 8 B. PLAINTIFF BURDEN AT THE SECOND STAGE OF THE ANALYSIS IS LOW. :................................10 9 10 1. THE TIMING OF PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION ESTABLISHES THE MINIMAL MERIT OF HIS 11 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, WRONGFUL DISCHARGE AND FAILURE TO 12 ACCOMMODATE CLAIMS. :................................11 13 EFENDANTS IES BOUT THE EASON FOR akhtiar 2. D ’ L A R B 14 PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION ESTABLISH THE • MINIMAL MERIT OF HIS DISABILITY 15 DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, WRONGFUL DISCHARGE AND FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE 16 CLAIMS. :................................14 17 ivingston 3. DEFENDANTS’ LIES ABOUT THE REASON FOR L 18 PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION ESTABLISH THE MINIMAL MERIT OF HIS AGE DISCRIMINATION 19 CLAIMS. :................................17 20 4. THE CONTINUINGDeadline VIOLATION DOCTRINE WILL 21 SAVE ANY FEHA CLAIM THAT MIGHT BE UNTIMELY. :................................19 22 23 5. PLAINTIFF’S REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DERIVATIVE OF HIS FEHA CLAIMS AND SURVIVE 24 FOR THE SAME REASONS. :................................21 25 IV. CONCLUSION :................................21 26 27 28 i. PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO ANTI-SLAPP 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS 3 TITLE PAGE 4 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) 490 U.S. 228 :............................................18 5 St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks 6 (1993) 509 U.S. 502 :............................................15 7 NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL DECISION 8 TITLE PAGE 9 Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, (9th Cir. 2003) :............................................13 10 Flores v. City of Westminster, 11 873 F.3d 739, (9th Cir. 2017) :............................................13 12 Passantino v. J&J Consumer Prod., 212 F.3d 493, (9th Cir.2000) :............................................13 13 akhtiar Ray v. Henderson, th B 14 217 F.3d 1234, (9 Cir.2000) :............................................13 • 15 Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co., 350 F.3d 1061, (9th Cir.2003) :............................................13 16 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS 17 ivingston TITLE PAGE L 18 FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. 19 (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133 :............................................09 20 Freeman v. Sup.Ct. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 533 Deadline:............................................14 21 Gantt v. Sentry Ins. 22 (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083 :............................................11 23 Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317 :....................................11, 13 24 Jeffra v. Cal. State Lottery 25 (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 471 :..............................02, 10, 21 26 Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1057 :............................................02 27 Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. 28 (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798 :..............................03, 19, 20 ii. PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO ANTI-SLAPP 1 TITLE PAGE 2 Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260 :............................................02 3 Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. 4 (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931 :....................................02, 10 5 Wilson v. C.N.N., Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871 :..................02, 07, 08, 09, 10 6 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. 7 (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028 :..............................11, 15, 19 8 CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS 9 TITLE PAGE 10 A.M. v. Albertsons (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 455 :....................................12, 20 11 Begnal v. Canfield & Assoc., Inc. 12 (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 66 :............................................19 13 Brundage v. Hahn akhtiar (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 228 :............................................11 B 14 • Cheal v. El Camino Hosp. 15 (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 736 :............................................18 16 Cloud v. Casey (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 895 :............................................14 17 ivingston Colarossi v. Coty US Inc. L 18 (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1142 :............................................13 19 Davis v. Inter’l. Brotherhood of Elec. Workers (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 686 :............................................14 20 Fisher v. San Pedro PeninsulaDeadline Hosp. 21 (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590 :............................................13 22 Flait v. North Am. Watch Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467 :............................................13 23 Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin 24 (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34 :....................................11, 12 25 George v. Cal. Unemp. Ins. Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1475 :............................................13 26 Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. College Dist. 27 (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1187 :............................................11 28 Herr v. Nestle U.S.A., Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 779 :............................................21 iii. PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO ANTI-SLAPP 1 TITLE PAGE 2 Hunter v. CBS (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1510 :............................................09 3 Jensen v. Wells Fargo 4 (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 245 :............................................11 5 Mamoui v. Trendwest Resort (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686 :....................................01, 15 6 Mathieu v. Norrell Corp. 7 (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1174 :............................................03 8 McRae v. Dept. of Corrections (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 377 :............................................13 9 Moore v. Regents of U.C. 10 (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216 :............................................14 11 Morgan v. U.C. Regents (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52 :....................................13, 19 12 Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc. 13 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 935