AJJN
AJJN
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
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
18
AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. Reservation ID: 269966417033
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
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
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 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
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.”
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
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
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,
20
21 By:
Paul D. Murphy
22 Daniel N. Csillag
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-
23 Complainant Angelina Jolie
24
25
26
27
28
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.
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.
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
16
17
Christina M. Garibay
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28