1 PAUL D. MURPHY (State Bar No.

159556)
[email protected]
2 DANIEL N. CSILLAG (State Bar No. 266773)
[email protected]
3 MURPHY ROSEN LLP
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
4 Santa Monica, California 90401-1142
Telephone: (310) 899-3300
5 Facsimile: (310) 399-7201

6 Attorneys for Defendant and

Cross-Complainant Angelina Jolie
7

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10

11 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual, and CASE NO. 22STCV06081

MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
12 limited liability company, [Hon. Lia Martin]
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT AND CROSS-

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

COMPLAINANT ANGELINA JOLIE’S

14 vs. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE
15 ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and
NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited Date: November 15, 2023
16 liability company, Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 16
17 Defendants.

18
AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. Reservation ID: 269966417033
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 1 ARGUMENT

2 Defendant and Cross-Complainant Angelina Jolie’s Request For Judicial Notice is

3 basic and routine. It asks the Court to take judicial notice of six documents that are referenced

4 and quoted in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)—four of which Plaintiffs contest.

5 Exhibit B is a contract between plaintiff Mondo Bongo and defendant Nouvel that is

6 summarized and referenced in paragraph 48. Exhibits A, D, and E are emails that are quoted

7 and paraphrased in paragraphs 47, 79-80, and 92.

8 While supposedly a “novel proposition” to Plaintiffs, courts regularly take judicial

9 notice of documents referenced in, but not attached as exhibits to, a complaint. In Ascherman

10 v. Gen. Reinsurance Corp., 183 Cal.App.3d 307 (1986), for example, the plaintiff sued for

11 declaratory relief pursuant to a reinsurance contract that was not attached to the complaint. Id.

12 at 310. The defendant filed a demurrer and sought judicial notice of the actual contract. The
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 court granted the request and sustained the demurrer. Id. The Court of Appeal held that taking
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 judicial notice of the contract was absolutely proper and affirmed. Id. at 310–11.

15 In Marina Tenants Ass’n v. Deauville Marina Dev. Co., 181 Cal.App.3d 122 (1986),

16 the plaintiffs referenced and quoted a lease, and the court took judicial notice of it even though

17 the lease was not attached to the complaint. Id. at 130. As the court explained, “the pleader

18 should not be allowed to bypass a demurrer by suppressing facts which the court will judicially

19 notice.” Id.; see also Salvaty v. Cable TV, 165 Cal.App.3d 798, 800 n.1 (1985) (demurrer

20 properly sustained where trial court took judicial notice of contract because given “the

21 references to the agreement in the complaint, [defendants] were entitled to present the trial

22 court with the complete document”).

23 The rule is not limited to contracts. In Swiss Park, Inc. v. City of Duarte, 136

24 Cal.App.3d 755 (1982), the court took judicial notice of the actual text of a redevelopment

25 plan and a map that was part of that plan that were selectively referenced in the complaint. Id.

26 at 758. The court noted that it “is well settled that, in ruling on a demurrer, a court may take

27 judicial notice of facts that contradict the face of the complaint.” Id.

28

-2- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 1 And lastly, in Dryden v. Tri-Valley Growers, 65 Cal.App.3d 990 (1977), the court

2 affirmed sustaining a demurrer where the trial court took judicial notice of two letters

3 incorporated into a complaint. Id. at 997. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish this case on the

4 ground that the letters were “attached” to the complaint, but Plaintiffs have misread Dryden.

5 While the court also took judicial notice of contracts attached to the complaint, id. at 995 n.1

6 & 998, the letters were not attached but merely “incorporated” by reference into the complaint.

7 Id. at 997.

8 None of the cases plaintiffs cite support their proposition that, for purposes of ruling on

9 a demurrer, courts cannot take judicial notice of documents when they are merely referred to in

10 the complaint. In Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 161

11 Cal.App.4th 184, 188 n.1. (2008), the court merely noted the general proposition that

12 documents attached to a complaint can be considered on demurrer. The opinion says nothing
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 about quoted or referenced documents not attached. The same is true in Frantz v. Blackwell,
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94 (1987), which also considered documents attached to the complaint.

15 Exhibit B is a contract between Nouvel and Mondo Bongo. Plaintiffs object to the

16 request for the Court to judicially notice this document, claiming it “is not even referenced in

17 the Complaint.” (Opp. 4:20-21.) Not true. Paragraph 48 of the SAC, states:

18 “In December 2013, shortly before he and Jolie married, Pitt, through Mondo
Bongo, entered into a transaction that transferred 100 Quimicum shares (or 10%
19 of Quimicum) to Nouvel for the sum of €1, never paid, such that Mondo Bongo
and Nouvel each nominally hold a 50% interest in Quimicum and, by extension,
20 Miraval.”

21 Then Paragraph 50 of the SAC alleges:

22 “Pitt would not have undertaken this separate transaction absent the contractual
relationship between the parties ensuring neither could unilaterally alienate their
23 interest. It would have made no sense for Pitt to contemplate giving up a majority
position in Quimicum (and thus Miraval) if Jolie could freely dispose of her stake
24 by selling her interest in Miraval to a third party without Pitt’s knowledge and
consent. In accepting the 10% interest, Jolie—a sophisticated party who, like
25 Pitt, brought significant independent assets into the couple’s relationship—
further manifested her understanding of the same.” (Emphasis added.)
26

27 This transaction also is expressly referenced in paragraphs 151, 155. In contradiction to these
28 allegations, the actual contract contains an expansive integration clause that precludes

-3- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 1 plaintiffs from relying on other, previously entered understandings and agreements. (RJN

2 Exh. B at p. 5, § 13.) The court is permitted to take judicial notice of that clause, which

3 contradicts and overrides Pitt’s inconsistent allegation that he undertook that transfer in

4 reliance on an understanding not stated in the actual contract.

5 Likewise, Exhibits A, D, and E are also quoted and referenced in the SAC. Jolie is not

6 asking the Court to take judicial notice of the facts contained in these documents for all

7 purposes or to resolve any ambiguities to the extent the Court finds anything within the

8 documents ambiguous. Instead, Jolie asks the Court to treat these documents as if they have

9 been attached to the SAC, and to follow the well-worn case law cited above that, to the extent

10 plaintiffs’ selective recitation and summaries of these documents contradict the documents

11 themselves, for purposes of demurrer, the documents control. See Weiner v. Mitchell,

12 Silberberg & Knupp, 114 Cal.App.3d 39, 47 (“The pleading must be read as if it contained all
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 matters of which the court could properly take judicial notice even in the face of allegations in
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

14 the pleading to the contrary.”). Pitt has selectively quoted these documents and his summaries

15 of them in the SAC are contradicted by the documents themselves. Jolie’s request to take

16 judicial notice of them is therefore appropriate. The Court should grant the request.

17

18 Respectfully submitted,

19 DATED: November 7, 2023 MURPHY ROSEN LLP

20

21 By:
Paul D. Murphy
22 Daniel N. Csillag
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-
23 Complainant Angelina Jolie

24

25

26

27

28

-4- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

JOLIE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I, Christina M. Garibay, declare:

3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300,
4 Santa Monica, California 90401-1142, (310) 899-3300.

5 On November 7, 2023, I served the document(s) described as DEFENDANT AND

CROSS-COMPLAINANT ANGELINA JOLIE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST
6 FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE on the interested parties in this action:

7 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

8
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused the above-document(s) to be served via the
9 Los Angeles Superior Court’s electronic service provider, One Legal.

10 BY E-MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service

by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the
11 email addresses listed above or on the attached service list. I did not receive within a
reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the
12 transmission was unsuccessful.
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

the above is true and correct.

14

15 Executed on November 7, 2023, at Santa Monica, California.

16

17
Christina M. Garibay
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PROOF OF SERVICE
 1 SERVICE LIST

2 William B. Pitt, et al. v. Angelina Jolie, et al.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV06081
3
John V. Berlinski Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-
4 BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT Defendants William B. Pitt, Mondo Bongo,
NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG & LLC and Cross-Defendant Warren Grant
5 RHOW, P.C.
6 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
7 T: (310) 201-2100 F: (310) 201-2110
[email protected]
8 [email protected]
[email protected]
9 [email protected]
[email protected]
10 [email protected]
[email protected]
11 [email protected]

12 William Savitt (admitted pro hac vice)

TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201

Jonathan Moses (admitted pro hac vice)

100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 Sarah K. Eddy (admitted pro hac vice)

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

Adam L. Goodman (admitted pro hac vice)

14
Remy Grosbard (admitted pro hac vice)
15 Jessica L. Allen (admitted pro hac vice)
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
16 51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
17 T: (212) 403-1000 F: (212) 403-2000
[email protected]
18
[email protected]
19 [email protected]
[email protected]
20 [email protected]
[email protected]
21
Mark T. Drooks Attorneys appearing specially to challenge
22
BIRD MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants
23 NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & Marc-Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval
RHOW, P.C. Provence, and SAS Familles Perrin
24 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
25 Tel: (212) 957-7600
[email protected]
26
S. Gale Dick (admitted pro hac vice)
27

28

-2- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PROOF OF SERVICE
 1 COHEN & GRESSER Attorneys appearing specially to challenge
800 Third Ave. jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants
2 New York, NY 10022 Marc-Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval
[email protected] Provence, and SAS Familles Perrin
3

6
Joe H. Tuffaha Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-
7 Prashanth Chennakesavan Complainant Nouvel, LLC and appearing
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP specially to challenge jurisdiction on
8 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 1400 behalf of Defendant Tenute del Mondo
Los Angeles, CA 90071 B.V., SPI Group Holding, Ltd., Yuri
9 T: (213) 612-8900 F: (213) 612-3773 Shelfer and Alexey Oliynik
[email protected]
10
[email protected]
11
Keith R. Hummel
12 Justin C. Clarke
TELEPHONE 310-899-3300; FACSIMILE 310-399-7201

Jonathan Mooney
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1300

13 CRAVATH SWAINE AND MOORE LLP

MURPHY ROSEN LLP
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-1142

825 Eighth Avenue

14
New York, NY 10019
15 T: (212) 474-1000 F: (212) 474-3700
[email protected]
16 [email protected]
[email protected]
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

PROOF OF SERVICE