Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 23STCV21986, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant MTV Networks Company (erroneously sued as “MTV Network, Inc.”)

1. Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action for Sexual Harassment because the Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and for failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action;

2. Demurrer to the Ninth Cause of Action for Negligence because the Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and for failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action;

3. Demurrer to the Eleventh Cause of Action for Aiding and Abetting because the Complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and for failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.[1]

1. MTV’s Demurrer to the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Causes of Action is SUSTAINED.

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff S.T. (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Eric Weinberg (Weinberg), Guitar and Pen Productions, Inc. (Guitar and Pen), MTV Networks (MTV), and Liquid Theory, Inc. (Liquid Theory) (collectively, Defendants) with eleven causes of action for: (1) Sexual Assault, (2) Sexual Battery, (3) Sexual Harassment, (4) Gender Violence, (5) False Imprisonment, (6) Assault, (7) Battery, (8) Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress, (9) Negligence, (10) Respondeat Superior, and (11) Aiding and Abetting.

According to the Complaint, Defendant Weinberg sexually assaulted and harassed Plaintiff while she was a working actress on Defendant MTV’s show Death Valley. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants MTV and Liquid Theory knew about the assault but failed to investigate it.

On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case to thirteen pending cases pending in Dept. 62 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

On October 16, 2023, Defendant MTV filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Notice of Related Cases.

On December 22, 2023, Defendants Eric Weinberg and Guitar and Pen Productions, Inc. filed an Answer.

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant MTV’s Demurrer.

The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318.) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Ibid.)

A demurrer assumes the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) No matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.¿ App. 3d 593, 604.) But this does not include contentions; deductions; conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice.¿ (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.)

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.10(e), the party against whom a complaint has been filed may demur to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Hahn v. Mirda, supra, 31 Cal. 4th at p. 745.)

Prior to filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to satisfy their meet and confer obligations pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. (CCP) §430.41 and demonstrate that they so satisfied their meet and confer obligation by submitting a declaration pursuant to CCP §430.41(a)(2) & (3).¿ Here, according to the Declaration of Emma Luevano, the parties met and conferred via mail on October 25, 2023 and November 7, 2023 and telephonically on November 9, 2023. (Luevano Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4.) The parties were unable to reach and agreement. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Accordingly, the meet and confer requirement is met.

MTV contends that Plaintiff does not plead any instance of sexual assault prior to 2011, a cover up of a sexual assault, or that MTV worked in concert with anyone to hide a prior instance of sexual assault. MTV also contends that Plaintiff did not plead that MTV was motivated to incentivize individuals to remain silent and to hide specific information from either the public at large or from Plaintiff.[2] Plaintiff argues that CCP 340.16 clearly applies to her claims for sexual harassment, negligence, and aiding and abetting against MTV. Plaintiff additionally argues that she alleged facts that MTV knew Defendant Weinberg had or would commit sexual assault/battery against persons on MTV’s set, like Plaintiff, and that MTV knew of Defendant Weinberg’s past history of sexual abuse and that Plaintiff’s incident was not the first incident reported to MTV. MTV replies that Plaintiff alleged conclusions, not facts, supporting her reliance on CCP 340.16.[3]

“In any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of sexual assault, where the assault occurred on or after the plaintiff's 18th birthday, the time for commencement of the action shall be the later of the following: (1) Within 10 years from the date of the last act, attempted act, or assault with the intent to commit an act, of sexual assault against the plaintiff.” (CCP § 340.16(a)(1).) “This section applies to any action described in subdivision (a) that is based upon conduct that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, and is commenced on or after January 1, 2019, that would have been barred solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired. Such claims are hereby revived and may be commenced until December 31, 2026.” (CCP § 340.16(b)(3).) “Subdivision (a) is not limited to causes of action for sexual assault/battery: it applies to ‘any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of sexual assault.’” (Jane Doe #21 (S.H.) v. CFR Enterprises, Inc. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1209.)

For this statute to apply, a plaintiff must allege all of the following: “(A) The plaintiff was sexually assaulted. (B) One or more entities are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault. (C) The entity or entities, including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator of such abuse.” (CCP § 340.16(e)(2)(A)-(C).) “Cover up” means a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that incentivizes individuals to remain silent or prevents information relating to a sexual assault from becoming public or being disclosed to the plaintiff, including, but not limited to, the use of nondisclosure agreements or confidentiality agreements. (CCP § 340.16(4)(A).) “[N]othing in the language of the statute requires that the alleged cover up involve a previous instance of sexual assault by the same individual who later assaulted the plaintiff.” (Jane Doe #2, supra, at p. 1212.)

Here, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff sufficiently pled the cover up requirement for CCP § 340.16 revival to apply. Upon reviewing the Complaint, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that MTV “engaged in a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault from becoming public or being disclosed to the plaintiff” as the statute requires. First, Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that MTV “deliberately failed to investigate the report of sexual assault due to Weinberg’s position within the entertainment industry.” (Compl. ¶ 12.) Second, Plaintiff alleges that after she reported the sexual assault to MTV’s producers, she was contacted by MTV’s legal department for a statement and heard nothing further. (Compl. ¶ 28.) Third, Plaintiff alleges that MTV contracted with Defendant Weinberg “knowing that he was a sexual predatory and was likely to use his position to sexually abuse and/or assault women . . . .” (Compl. ¶¶ 97, 111.) These are not allegations of a prior cover up. Nor are they allegations “that incentivizes individuals to remain silent or prevents information relating to a sexual assault from becoming public or being disclosed to the plaintiff.”

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS MTV’s demurrer to the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Causes of Action as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

Leave to amend should be liberally granted if there is a reasonable possibility an amendment could cure the defect.¿ (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 1018,1035.)¿ The Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that leave to amend should be granted, and that the defects can be cured by amendment. (“Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.” Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) Here, Plaintiff requested leave to amend but provided the legal standard for leave to amend rather than demonstrating that any defects can be cured by amendment. The Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard at the hearing on this issue. Absent a showing of a reasonable possibility of being able to amend the pleadings to cure the noted defects, the Demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend.

1. MTV’s Demurrer to the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Causes of Action is SUSTAINED.

Pursuant to CCP § 581d, this written order of dismissal constitutes a judgment and shall be effective for all purposes. The Clerk shall note this judgment in the register of actions in this case.

[1]The Court would note that Aiding and Abetting is not a cause of action but rather a theory of liability. Aiding and Abetting a named intentional tort is a cause of action.

[2] As to the Eleventh Cause of Action, MTV also contends that the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s claim and that Plaintiff failed to allege that MTV had the specific intent to facilitate any wrongful conduct. Plaintiff did not directly address this point in her opposition. The court declines to develop this argument further.

[3] MTV relies on Doe v. Neverson (2023) WL 9375100, a District Court opinion which is neither binding nor persuasive on this court. Still, the court there noted that the plaintiff was limited to the ten-year limitations period because there were “no allegation[s] that evidence was hidden, that nondisclosure agreements were sought, or that confidentiality agreements were reached.” The court also noted that the plaintiff alleged the abuser’s behavior was public knowledge.