Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV15449, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff Dylan Scott Perry (“Perry”) filed this action against Defendant Walt Disney Company dba Twentieth Century Studios (“Disney”), alleging a violation of his Civil Rights, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, including his right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. On September 8, 2023, Defendant Disney filed a demurrer.

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, accepting the alleged facts as true. (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.) A special demurrer for uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant or plaintiff cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)

A complaint must contain “facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” Code Civ. Proc. § 425.10(a)(1). When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Citation.] And when it is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion, and we affirm. (Zelig v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 1112, 1126, 45 P.3d 1171, 1180.)

A. Plaintiff Fails to Assert Facts Sufficient to Constitute a Viable Cause of Action

Defendant generally and specifically demurs to Plaintiff’s entire complaint on the basis that (1) the Complaint is uncertain pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(f); and (2) the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e).

Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant Disney used the animated television series American Dad! to send him coded death threats, and thus, take away his civil rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the Declaration of Independence. (Complaint at p. 2.) As such, Plaintiff demands $1 billion in monetary relief to be able to afford security, including a “moat, alligators, a drawbridge, nuclear defenses, anti-air missiles, and to hire 4 or more Mercenaries wielding M16s to secure the perimeter my home.” (Id. at 4.) “I will also need to hire bodyguards to escort my future children to and from school, and my future wife to and from her business/errands . . . I require a piece of land near the ocean. I have a condition that requires me to swim in the ocean to aid in drainage of mucous from my sinuses.” (Id.)

Plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief in the form of (1) the Court ordering the “episode containing the threats be removed from television and all streaming platforms.” (Complaint at p. 3.) (2) Plaintiff wants Disney to “cease all productions at once, as they could potentially threaten others or try to unjustly/unlawfully govern them.” (Id.) Lastly, (3) Plaintiff seeks “a restraining order that will prevent the Walt Disney Company from threatening me, stalking me, murdering me, or implying that they will murder me, my father, or my girlfriend.” (Id.) Plaintiff also prays for punitive damages and asserts that Disney should be shut down and made to forfeit all their assets and land to the US Government to be governed by the people. (Id. at p. 6.)

Defendant Disney argues Plaintiff’s Complaint is so uncertain as to be unintelligible and that Disney cannot make enough sense of Plaintiff’s allegations to defend itself. (Demurrer at p. 1.) Disney further argues that Plaintiff does not allege any cause of action or plead facts to provide a legal basis to support his claim of civil rights violations. (Id. at p. 2.)

Disney also notes that this is Plaintiff’s third lawsuit with Los Angeles Superior Court relating to the cartoon American Dad! On August 11, 2023, Judge Curtis Kin in Department 82 denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and writ of possession in this action. Plaintiff filed the August 11 ex parte application before serving Disney with the Complaint in this case and after Disney had filed Demurrers in the two other cases: 23STCV11392 and 23STCP01900 (demurrers filed June 23, 2023). On August 14, 2023, Judge Chalfant in Department 85 denied Plaintiff’s related ex parte application in case number 23STCV11392. Previously, on June 16, 2023, Judge Curtis Kin in Department 82 had denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application in case number 23STCP01900. Now, all three cases are related before this Court.

The Court finds Plaintiff has not set forth facts sufficient to allege a cause of action. Plaintiff does not provide a legal basis for his allegations and does not assert facts that could support such basis, even if Plaintiff had provided one. Moreover, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s allegations are entirely uncertain and do not provide Disney with facts sufficient to build a legal defense. It is not clear what causes of action Plaintiff is asserting. Further, Defendants have adequately met their requirement to meet and confer with Plaintiff. (Fenzel Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court