Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 23STCV26650, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

(2) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HUANG V. HANKS (2018) 23 CAL. APP. 5TH 179

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Robyn Fenty, incorrectly sued as Miss Robyn ‘Rihanna Honduras’ Fenty

Plaintiff Josanne Acosta, in pro per, brings this action against Defendant Robyn Fenty, professionally known as the musical artist and business-woman Rihanna. Plaintiff alleges that in 2014, she advised Defendant on how to start her “Fenty” business. Defendant has allegedly sold the business, and Plaintiff now moves to recover payment for the services and guidance provide to Defendant. Plaintiff asserts one cause of action for breach of contract.

On October 31, 2024, the Court also set an OSC Re: dismissal with prejudice in accordance with Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 179. The OSC is addressed herein.

The OSC re: dismissal is GRANTED. The case is ordered DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 179.

The Declaration of Attorney Carla M. Wirtschafter reflects that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied.

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Id.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Defendant Fenty demurrers to the Complaint on the grounds it is uncertain the fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

By form complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in 2014 pursuant to an oral agreement, she advised Defendant Fenty—known professionally as Rihanna—“on how to start a business, which included a proposed logo design, business name, marketing strategies and other inclusions.” (Compl., BC-1.) Defendant told Plaintiff that “that the money will be paid to her for her services and additionally for her recommendation to His Majesty the King Philip Mountbatten and Prince Charles Windsor who endorsed her business proposal and recommended her to some American businessmen who had the knowledge of the American business system and whom would best be able to help her set up in America.” (Id., BC-2.)

Plaintiff “has been informed via an article on the internet that [Defendant] has sold the Fenty business,” and though “it could be a rumour [sic], nonetheless Miss Acosta would like to take the opportunity to have her sum of money for her services and guidance issued to her at the earliest as ordered by the court of San Francisco for their protection and via legal recording of the act and the provision of a safe and conducive business atmosphere to issue the transaction.” (Id., BC-4.)

Plaintiff also alleges that “defendant & plaintiff have both never been given a safe opportunity finalize all payments to the Plaintiff” and that “Defendant has indicated to the Plaintiff during a brief encounter in 2014 that she has HIV/AIDS and has indicated for the Plaintiff to stay away from her in case she gives her the disease.” (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.) On these allegations, Plaintiff asserts one cause of action for breach of oral contract.

Plaintiff contends in her “Response to the Demurrer” that she is the great-grandaughter of Queen Victoria and inherited £539 million dollars upon her death. (Plaintiff’s Response to Demurrer, p. 2.)[1] Plaintiff also recounts visits from her purported grandfather, King Phillip, with whom she left her inheritance. (Id.) Plaintiff suggests King Phillip and entertainer Justin Timberlake assisted Plaintiff in coordinating the business arrangement with Rihanna. (Id.) Plaintiff also states that her former husband, Marshall Mathers,[2] provided “gambling chips” to Defendant worth “trillions” of dollars. (Id., p. 5.)

In support of the demurrer, Defendant first argues the allegations “are so uncertain and unintelligible that it is unclear what Plaintiff is even contending.” (Dem. 3: 26-7.)

“The elements of a breach of oral contract claim are the same as those for a breach of written contract: a contract; its performance or excuse for nonperformance; breach; and damages.” (Stockton Mortg., Inc. v. Tope (2014) 233 Cal. App. 4th 437, 453.) Like written contracts, an oral contract requires mutual assent and terms specific enough to be enforced. (In re Marriage of Shaban (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 398, 406.)

The court would agree that the allegations leave much to be desired. While the “Judicial Council pleading forms have simplified the art of pleading,” they still require more than “merely placing an ‘X’ in a box.” (People ex rel. Dep't of Transportation v. Superior Ct. (1992) 5 Cal. App. 4th 1480, 1484.) A form complaint must “contain whatever ultimate facts are essential to state a cause of action under existing statutes or case law.” (Id.) This court is also aware and mindful of its duty to read the allegations liberally and in context (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228) and to “emphasiz[e] substance over form.” (Ameron Internat. Corp. v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1370, 1386). Moreover, as a general rule, “demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored.” (Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 1125, 1135.)

Even so, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to survive demurrer. All that can be gathered from the allegations are that Plaintiff entered into an oral contract with Defendant to provide Defendant with advice for the formation of her business, Fenty. Much of the text entered into the form complaint appears to be cut-off. As to substance, the complaint is unintelligible and lacks the facts necessary to discern the basis of this lawsuit. These bare allegations deprive Defendant of the opportunity to reasonably respond to the Complaint. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal. App. 5th 677, 695.) Therefore, the complaint is uncertain, and Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED on this ground.

Aside from the unintelligible nature of the Complaint, Defendant also contends the Complaint fails because it is time-barred. The statute of limitations for breach of an oral contract is two years. (CCP § 339(a).)) “The statute of limitations for a breach of contract claim begins to run at the time of breach (that is, when one party fails to perform as contractually required).” (Piedmont Cap. Mgmt., L.L.C. v. McElfish (2023) 94 Cal. App. 5th 961, 964.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached the agreement in “2014 & in 2016. (Compl., BC-2.) On the face of the Complaint, this means the statute of limitations expired in either 2016 or 2018. Because Plaintiff did not file this action until 2023, it is untimely.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer is also SUSTAINED based on the statute of limitations.

Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Because there is no reasonable possibility of successful amendment here, NO LEAVE TO AMEND IS GIVEN.

This court previously set an Order to Show Cause re: dismissal with prejudice in accordance with Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 179. (See 10/31/2024 Minute Order.) The court invited Plaintiff’s response to the OSC by 12/09/2024. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a standalone response to the OSC. However, based on the nature of her “Answer” to the demurrer, the court construes that Answer as her response to the OSC.

Consistent with their “inherent power to control their proceedings,” California courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss cases that are “fraudulent or vexatious.” (Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 179, 181–82 [cleaned up].) It is uncontroversial that defendants should “be free from the monetary expense and other costs of responding to [a plaintiff’s] frivolous claims that cannot avoid being categorized as ‘fantastic,’ ‘delusional,’ or ‘fanciful.’” (Id.)

As discussed previously, Plaintiff makes numerous bold claims, including that she is the mastermind behind the Fenty brand, that she is a member of the British Royal Family, and that she was married to Eminem. Reading these contentions prompts a refrain the court finds fitting and which the Defendant might be familiar:

Whether Plaintiff genuinely believes her allegations to be true is beside the point. With all due respect to Plaintiff, these claims are objectively “fantastic, delusional, [and] fanciful.” To spare Defendant the costs of defending such a suit—and so that scarce judicial resources can be refocused toward “actual disputes”—this case must be dismissed with prejudice. (Huang, supra, 23 Cal. App. 5th at 182.)

Accordingly, the OSC re: dismissal is GRANTED. The case is ordered DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.

[1] It should be noted that Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901, which makes it highly unlikely she left any inheritance to the Plaintiff, let alone £539 million, upon her death.

[2] Marshall Mathers is more commonly known professionally as “Eminem,” who has only been married (twice) to Kim Scott (1999-2001; 2006.)

[3] This was Chris Brown’s touching ode to Rihanna after their well-publicized breakup.