Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV01351, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCV01351    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues

Moving Party: Defendant Hunter Hill

Resp. Party:    Plaintiffs Sawyers S., Donlad D., Ayden M., Connor C., Hayden H., Walker B., Sophia F., Corinne D., Symonne H., Claire E., and Reese E.

SUBJECT:        Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues

Moving Party: Defendants Tiffany Smith and Rockelle Piper, Inc.

Resp. Party:    Plaintiffs Sawyers S., Donlad D., Ayden M., Connor C., Hayden H., Walker B., Sophia F., Corinne D., Symonne H., Claire E., and Reese E.

SUBJECT:        Motion for Leave to Amend FAC

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Sawyers S., Donlad D., Ayden M., Connor C., Hayden H., Walker B., Sophia F., Corinne D., Symonne H., Claire E., and Reese E.

Resp. Party:    Defendants Hunter Hill, Tiffany Smith, and Rockelle Piper, Inc.

The Hill Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.  The Smith and Rockelle Piper, Inc. Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.  Plaintiffs’ request in the alternative to allow more time for discovery is DENIED as moot.

The Motion for Leave to Amend FAC is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their proposed second amended complaint within five (5) days of the issuance of this Order.

BACKGROUND:

        On January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Sawyers S., Donlad D., Ayden M., Connor C., Hayden H., Walker B., Sophia F., Corinne D., Symonne H., Claire E., and Reese E. filed their Complaint against Defendants Tiffany Rockelle Smith, Hunter Hill, and Piper Rockelle, Inc. The underlying allegations involve the mistreatment and abuse of Plaintiffs, who are all minors, in the production of Defendants’ YouTube channel.

        The Court has appointed the following guardians ad litem in this matter: Ashley Anne Rock Smith on behalf of Claire E. and Reese E.; Yvonne Dougher on behalf of Donlad D.; Tania Harrison on behalf of Symonne H.; Heather Nichole Trimmer on behalf of Sophia F.; Amber Nicole Cain on behalf of Connor C.; Carla Haas on behalf of Hayden H.; Angela Sharbino on behalf of Sawyer S.; Jennifer Ann Bryant on behalf of Walker B.; Stephenie Arecco on behalf of Corinne D.; and Maria Mekus on behalf of Ayden M.

        On September 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC).

        On October 10, 2023, Defendants filed their Answer to the FAC.

        On January 5, 2024, Defendant Hunter Hill filed his Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues (“Hill MSJ”). In support of the Hill MSJ, Defendant Hunter Hill concurrently filed: (1) Separate Statement; (2) Declaration of Hunter Hill; (3) Declaration of Kenneth Ingber; (4) Request for Judicial Notice; and (5) Proposed Order.

        On January 10, 2024, Defendants Tiffany Smith and Piper Rockelle, Inc. filed their Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues (“Smith MSJ”). In support of the Smith MSJ, Defendants Tiffany Smith and Piper Rockelle Inc. concurrently filed: (1) Separate Statement; (2) Declaration of Tiffany Smith; (3) Declaration of Hunter Hill; (4) Declaration of Kenneth Ingber; (5) Request for Judicial Notice; and (6) Proposed Order.

        On February 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to Amend FAC. In support of their Motion for Leave to Amend FAC, Plaintiffs concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Matthew M. Hoesly; (2) Proposed Order; and (3) Proof of Service.

        On March 11, 2024, Defendants filed their Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Amend FAC. In support of their Opposition to the Motion for Leave to Amend FAC, Defendants concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Kenneth Ingber; (2) Request for Judicial Notice; (3) Evidentiary Objections; and (4) Proposed Order on Evidentiary Objections.

        On March 12, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Opposition to the Hill MSJ and the Smith MSJ. In support of their Consolidated Opposition, Plaintiffs concurrently filed: (1) Separate Statement; (2) Declaration of Matthew M. Hoesly; (3) Declaration of Ashely Anne-Rock Smith; (4) Declaration of Amber Cain; (5) Declaration of Connor C.; (6) Declaration of Carla Haas; (7) Declaration of Jennifer Bryant; (8) Declaration of Hayden H.; (9) Declaration of Sophia F.; (10) Declaration of Reese E.; (11) Declaration of Walker B.; (12) Declaration of Symonne H.; (13) Declaration of Ayden M.; (14) Declaration of Angela Sharbino; (15) Declaration of Corinne D.; (16) Declaration of Claire E.; (17) Declaration of Heather Trimmer; (18) Declaration of Donlad D.; (19) Declaration of Sawyer S.; (20) Declaration of Maria Mekus; (21) Declaration of Tania Harrison; (22) Declaration of Stephenie Areeco; (23) Declaration of Yvonne Dougher; (24) Notice of Lodging; and (25) Proof of Service.

        On March 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend FAC.

        On March 21, 2024, Defendants Tiffany Smith and Piper Rockelle, Inc. filed their Reply in Support of Smith MSJ. Defendant Hunter Hill filed his Reply in Support of Hill MSJ. Defendants concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Kenneth Ingber; (2) Response to Separate Statement; (3) Declaration of Theresa Magnus; (4) Evidentiary Objections (filed separately by declaration); and (5) Proposed Orders for Evidentiary Objections (filed separately by declaration).

ANALYSIS:

        The Court concurrently considers the Hill MSJ and the Smith MSJ. The Court then considers the Motion for Leave to Amend FAC.

I.          Hills MSJ and Smith MSJ

A.      Evidentiary Objections

Defendants filed evidentiary objections to Plaintiffs’ evidence. The following are the Court’s rulings on these objections.

1.          Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Matthew Hoesly

2.          Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Ashley Anne-Rock Smith

3.      Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Amber Cain

4.      Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Connor C.

5.      Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Carla Haas

6.          Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Jennifer Bryant

7.      Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Hayden H.

8.      Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Sophia F.

9.      Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Reese E.

10.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Walker B.

11.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Symonne H.

12.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Ayden M.

13.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Angela Sharbino

14.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Corinne D.

15.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Claire E.

16.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Heather Trimmer

17.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Donlad D.

18.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Sawyer S.

19.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Maria Mekus

20.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Tania Harrison

21.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Stephenie Areeco

22.       Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Yvonne Dougher

        As seen above, the Court has ruled upon all of Defendants’ 202 objections.  Nonetheless, the Court questions the necessity of these voluminous objections. For instance, Defendants repeatedly objected to the statement of various declarants that “All of the matters set forth herein are true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, except those matters stated upon information and belief, and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.”  (See, e.g., Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Jennifer Bryant, Objection No.1.)  This objection is patently frivolous.  (See, e.g., Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 254, fn. 3 [The “litigants file[d] blunderbuss objections to virtually every item of evidence submitted. This is hardly good advocacy, and it unnecessarily overburdens the trial court.”])

B.      Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendants request for both the Hill MSJ and the Smith MSJ that the Court take judicial notice of: (1) the FAC; and (2) the Declaration of Ashley Roberts (and exhibits thereto) filed in this matter on June 27, 2022.

The Court DENIES as superfluous judicial notice of these items. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to an item filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

C.      Legal Standard

“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. The motion may be made at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (1)(a).)

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon. There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, citation omitted.)

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Aguilar, supra, at p. 850; Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474, [applying the summary judgment standards in Aguilar to motions for summary adjudication].)

“On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues. Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law. If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.” (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839, citation omitted.)

“The trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a fact finder to determine whose version is more likely true. Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility.” (Binder, supra, at p. 840, citations omitted; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].)

“On a motion for summary adjudication, the trial court has no discretion to exercise. If a triable issue of material fact exists as to the challenged causes of action, the motion must be denied. If there is no triable issue of fact, the motion must be granted.” (Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320, citation omitted.)

D.      Discussion

Defendant Hunter Hill moves for summary judgment on the FAC, or in the alternative summary adjudication on the various issues raised in the FAC. (Hill MSJ, p. 13:5–8.)

Defendant Hunter Hill argues: (1) that the publicity and unjust enrichment claims are without merit; (2) that the interference and related conspiracy and unfair competition claims are without merit; and (3) that the negligence claims are without merit. (Hill MSJ, pp. 5:14, 6:21–22, 10:10.)

Defendants Tiffany Smith and Piper Rockelle, Inc. move for summary judgment on the FAC, or in the alternative summary adjudication on the various issues raised in the FAC. (Smith MSJ, p. 15:8–11.)

Defendants Tiffany Smith and Piper Rockelle, Inc. echo the arguments made by Defendant Hunter Hill. (Smith MSJ, pp. 5:25, 7:13–14, 12:3.) They further argue that the bodily injury claims are without merit. (Id. at p. 14:4.)

1.      The Publicity and Unjust Enrichment Claims

Defendants claim that they had the consent of Plaintiffs’ parents; Plaintiffs’ parents declare that they did not consent to what occurred.

Even considering just this one element of these causes of action, it is clear that the publicity and unjust enrichment claims involve triable issues of material fact. There also appear to be triable issues of material fact as to the other elements of these causes of action.

Thus, although Defendants have met their initial burden, Plaintiffs meet their subsequent burden. Summary adjudication is inappropriate here.

2.          The Interference, Conspiracy, and Unfair Competition Claims

Defendants claim that they did not engage in various acts (e.g., flagging Plaintiffs’ content as inappropriate, utilizing “bots”, conspiring to sabotage Plaintiffs’ respective YouTube channels, and embedding Plaintiffs’ videos in pornography websites); Plaintiffs and their parents declare that they did.

Much of Plaintiffs’ evidence — including the highly specific testimony of Angela Sharbino, the various screenshots of YouTube channel analytics, and the testimony of Plaintiffs who heard Defendants discuss how they affected other YouTubers’ accounts — makes clear that there are multiple triable issues of material fact to resolve.

As in section 1 above, although Defendants have met their initial burden, Plaintiffs meet their subsequent burden. Summary adjudication is inappropriate here.

3.      The Negligence Claims

Defendants claim that they did not have a duty or special relationship regarding Plaintiffs; they also claim that they did not expose Plaintiffs to lewd and lascivious conduct and materials, commit perverse and prurient acts, or expose the children to controlled substances. Plaintiffs, who are minors, declare that they were regularly in the sole care of Defendants, who did all of these things.

        The law is clear that adults supervising minors owe a duty of care to those minors. (Margaret W. v. Kelley R. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 141, 153, citing Romero v. Super. Ct. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078 [“The court (in Romero) held that an adult who invites a minor into her home assumes a special relationship with the minor in light of the minor’s vulnerability.”].)

        Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ extensive declarations regarding sexual content, substance use, and other items demonstrate that there are multiple triable issues of material fact at issue.

As in sections 1 and 2 above, although Defendants have met their initial burden, meet their subsequent burden. Summary adjudication is inappropriate here.

4.      The Bodily Injury Claims

Defendant Tiffany Smith claims that she did not touch any of the Plaintiffs with intent to harm or offend and that she did not act outrageously or intend to cause emotional distress. Plaintiffs testify repeatedly to exactly the opposite.

There are clearly multiple triable issues of material fact at to the bodily injury claims.

Once again, as in sections 1, 2 and 3 above, although Defendants have met their initial burden, Plaintiffs meet their subsequent burden. Summary judgment and adjudication are inappropriate here.

E.      Conclusion

The Hill Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

The Smith and Rockelle Piper, Inc. Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

II.       Motion for Leave to Amend FAC

A.      Evidentiary Objections

Defendants filed evidentiary objections to the Plaintiffs’ Declaration of Matthew Hoesly. The following are the Court’s rulings on these objections.

B.      Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of prior orders issued in this matter.

The Court DENIES as superfluous judicial notice of these items. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to an item filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

C.      Legal Standard

“The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

        “Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)

“A motion to amend a pleading before trial must: (1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).)

“A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)

Leave to amend is thus liberally granted, provided there is no statute of limitations concern. (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 411.) The Court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.)

D.      Discussion

1.      California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324

Plaintiffs substantially complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

First, Plaintiffs’ Counsel submitted a copy of the proposed amended pleading. (Decl. Hoesly, Exh. 1.)

Second, the proposed amended pleading is red-lined version, which shows exactly where additions and deletions would be made. (Decl. Hoesly, Exh. 1.)

        Finally, Plaintiffs’ Counsel declares: (1) that the effect of the proposed pleading is to add seven causes of action — all based on alleged violations of the Labor Code — but no new factual allegations; (2) that the proposed amendments are necessary and proper because these additional theories of liability are based on the facts previously alleged in the Complaint and the FAC; (3) that that the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered during the course of the Parties’ litigation; and (4) that the reason the request for the proposed amendments was not made sooner was because of a pending investigation by the Labor Commissioner’s Office that appears to have recently ended. (Decl. Hoesly, Exh. 1, ¶¶ 3–5.)

2.      Prejudice

Trial is scheduled for May 20, 2024.

The Court balances the risks of prejudice to both parties. Even though the trial date is less than two months away, the risk of prejudice to Defendants by allowing the proposed amendments is low because Defendants should have enough time to prepare for these new causes of action.

On the other hand, the risk of prejudice to Plaintiffs by disallowing the proposed amendments is high because these appear to be compulsory causes of action.

        Upon balancing the relative risks, it would be appropriate here to grant leave to amend.

3.      No Further Continuances

        The Court previously stated that there will be no further continuances in this matter. (Minute Order dated September 5, 2023, p. 2.)

There does not appear to be any further discovery implicated by the proposed amendments because they are solely based on the existing allegations in the FAC.

At this time, the Court has not been presented with a sufficient reason to warrant a continuance of trial in this matter.

E.      Conclusion

The Motion for Leave to Amend FAC is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their proposed second amended complaint within five (5) days of the issuance of this Order.