This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2019 at 12:40:15 (UTC).

ARMEN BOLADIAN ET AL VS GEORGE CLINTON ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/25/2015 ARMEN BOLADIAN filed a Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation lawsuit against GEORGE CLINTON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOSEPH R. KALIN, MICHAEL J. RAPHAEL, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB, STEPHANIE M. BOWICK, MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF and DENNIS J. LANDIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6665

  • Filing Date:

    03/25/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOSEPH R. KALIN

MICHAEL J. RAPHAEL

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

STEPHANIE M. BOWICK

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

DENNIS J. LANDIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

BOLADIAN ARMEN

BRIDGEPORT MUSIC INC.

WESTBOUND RECORDS INC.

Defendants and Respondents

CLINTON GEORGE

CLOUGH LARRY

DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH P.C. THE

DOBRUSIN LAW FIRM P.C. THE

ROZANSKY DANIEL A.

THENNISCH JEFFREY P.

SIMON & SCHUSTER INC.

STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP

THE DOBRUSIN LAW FIRM PC

DOBRUSIN & THENNISCH PC

GREENMAN BEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KING & BALLOW

DUVALL PAUL HAMILTON

BUSCH RICHARD STEVEN

TRECHSEL FRANK RINARD

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

JOHN M. KALAJIAN LAW OFFICE OF

WAXLER CARNER BRODSKY LLP

KLINEDINST PC [LA]

BOOTH SWEET LLP

STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP [NY]

GERARD FOX LAW PC

KLINEDINST PC [SD]

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP [CA]

KALAJIAN JOHN MARTIN

WAXLER ANDREW JAY

[NY] DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

[CA] DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

HILVERT ALEKSANDRA MARIA

[SD] KLINEDINST PC

PIETZ MORGAN E

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

4/27/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

DECLARATION OF FRANK R. TRECHSEL IS SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION BY DEFENDANT GEORGE CLINTON TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQU

5/16/2018: DECLARATION OF FRANK R. TRECHSEL IS SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF OPPOSITION BY DEFENDANT GEORGE CLINTON TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES AND REQU

Minute Order

3/7/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

6/18/2019: Declaration

Separate Statement

7/1/2019: Separate Statement

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT JURY DEMAND

5/22/2015: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT JURY DEMAND

NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC.'S AND BEN GREENMAN'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

7/7/2015: NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC.'S AND BEN GREENMAN'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMEN BOLADIAN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GEORGE CLINTON'S ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE

8/6/2015: DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMEN BOLADIAN IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GEORGE CLINTON'S ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

8/18/2015: REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF PAUL H. DUVALL, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS THE DOBRUSIN LAW FIRM P.C. AND JEFFREY P. THENNISCIT'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLIES

8/24/2015: DECLARATION OF PAUL H. DUVALL, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS THE DOBRUSIN LAW FIRM P.C. AND JEFFREY P. THENNISCIT'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPLIES

Minute Order

9/8/2015: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

10/8/2015: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

NOTICE OF APPEAL

11/24/2015: NOTICE OF APPEAL

APPELLANT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)

12/3/2015: APPELLANT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL (UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE)

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS SIMON & SCHUSTER AND BEN GREENMAN TO RECOVER ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS; DECLARATIONS OF JEAN-PAUL JASSY, DAVID HILLMAN, AND DEBORAH ADLER WITH EXHIBITS A-G

12/23/2015: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANTS SIMON & SCHUSTER AND BEN GREENMAN TO RECOVER ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS; DECLARATIONS OF JEAN-PAUL JASSY, DAVID HILLMAN, AND DEBORAH ADLER WITH EXHIBITS A-G

NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL

2/25/2016: NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

3/24/2016: NOTICE OF DEFAULT

DECLARATION OF PAUL H. DUVALL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO LARRY CLOUGH'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ?

9/8/2017: DECLARATION OF PAUL H. DUVALL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO LARRY CLOUGH'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ?

450 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/03/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Special Interrogatories) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • Declaration (DECLARATION OF DARLA CRAIN IN SUPPORT OF GEORGE CLINTON?S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF ESI AND DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFFS RE: POST-2007 ROYALTY ACCOUNTING & NASHVILLE LITIGATION); Filed by George Clinton (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • Reply (GEORGE CLINTON?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF ESI AND DOCUMENTS FROM PLAINTIFFS RE: POST-2007 ROYALTY ACCOUNTING & NASHVILLE LITIGATION; PIETZ REPLY DECLARATION WITH EX. V & W); Filed by George Clinton (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • Declaration (OF BRITTNEY DOBBINS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS CONDITIONALLY LODGED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 2.550 AND 2.551); Filed by Armen Boladian (Plaintiff); Bridgeport Music, Inc. (Plaintiff); Westbound Records, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • Application (TO EXTEND THE TIME TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS CONDITIONALLY LODGED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 2.550 AND 2.551); Filed by Armen Boladian (Plaintiff); Bridgeport Music, Inc. (Plaintiff); Westbound Records, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • Objection (GEORGE CLINTON?S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND APPLICATION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF: (1) THE OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF SARAH CATLETT; (2) THE OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF JOEL MARTIN; AND (3) THE OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF RICHARD BUSCH); Filed by George Clinton (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Special Interrogatories) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Separate Statement (IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO COMPEL LICENSING DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY PLAINTIFF ARMEN BOLADIAN;); Filed by George Clinton (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Declaration (of Aleksandra Hilvert IN SUPPPORT OF GEORGE CLINTON?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION LICENSING DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY PLAINTIFF ARMEN BOLADIAN;); Filed by George Clinton (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
871 More Docket Entries
  • 05/13/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2015
  • Receipt-Depository; Filed by Armen Boladian (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2015
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Armen Boladian (Plaintiff); Bridgeport Music, Inc. (Plaintiff); Westbound Records, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND DEFAMATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC576665    Hearing Date: February 07, 2020    Dept: 51

Background

Plaintiff Armen Boladian (“Boladian”) is the President and sole owner of Bridgeport Music, Inc. and Westbound Records, Inc. Boladian alleges that Bridgeport and/or Westbound own certain master recordings of funk musician George Clinton (“Clinton”).

In 2011, George Clinton brought a lawsuit against Boladian, Clinton v. Montes, et al., (C.D. Cal. Filed Dec. 5, 2011) No. CV-11-10062, claiming that Clinton is the actual owner of all rights to the recordings (“the 2011 Litigation”). Boladian alleges that the 2011 litigation was false, malicious and lacked probable cause. 

In addition, Boladian alleges that Clinton made certain defamatory statements about Boladian, including in Clinton’s 2015 autobiography and in a 2013 an interview with WXYZ in Detroit, in which Clinton falsely claimed that Boladian did not pay royalties to Clinton and to “hundreds” of other people (Complaint ¶ 78).

As a result, on March 25, 2015, Plaintiffs Armen Boladian; Bridgeport Music, Inc.; Westbound Records, Inc. (collectively Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendants George Clinton; Jeffrey P. Thennish; The Dobrusin Law Firm; Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP; Ben Greeman; Atria Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. and Does 1-10. 

On January 15, 2020, Defendant Clinton filed the instant motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. The trial is scheduled on February 25, 2020.

The Court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, and rules as follows.¿ ¿

Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

A cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the initial complaint or cross-complaint against the cross-complainant must be filed before or at the same time as the answer to the initial complaint or cross-complaint, which answer must be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint or cross-complaint.  CCP §§ 412.20(a)(3), 428.50(a), 432.10. e court has set a trial date.  CCP § 428.50(b). permission from the court to file the cross-complaint.  CCP §§ 426.50, 428.50(c). during the course of the action.  CCP § 428.50(c).

A party who fails to plead a cause of action subject to the requirements of this article, whether through oversight, inadvertence, mistake, neglect, or other cause, may apply to the court for leave to amend his pleading, or to file a cross-complaint, to assert such cause at any time during the course of the action.  The court, after notice to the adverse party, shall grant, upon such terms as may be just to the parties, leave to amend the pleading, or to file the cross-complaint, to assert such cause if the party who failed to plead the cause acted in good faith.  This subdivision shall be liberally construed to avoid forfeiture of causes of action. 426.50. 

Analysis

Clinton proposes to file a cross-complaint based on six causes of action: (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Breach of Oral Contract, (3) Breach of Written contract, (4) Fraudulent Transfer, (5) Conversion, and (6) Accounting. Susman Decl., Ex. A. Clinton argues that the cross-complaint is based upon discovery of new facts after Plaintiffs’ production of documents and deposition testimony. Clinton mainly argues that the new evidence shows Plaintiffs’ lack of knowledge of how much money was advanced to Clinton and how much money they earned from recordings. Clinton also claims that Plaintiffs improperly cross-collateralized debts and monies owed to Clinton under different agreements.  

First, the Court finds that these facts are nothing new to this action or the 2011 Litigation. Clinton is re-asserting accusations regarding the alleged nonpayment of royalties and failure to provide a proper accounting, claims that were already alleged and dismissed in the 2011 Litigation. Pl.’s Exs. 4, 5. Specifically, Clinton has already asserted his rights and ownership of copyrights against Boladian and his companies in the previous complaints, and the federal district court dismissed his complaint with prejudice on the basis that he failed to state a claim for relief. Pl.’s Exs. 4-6; see Bufil¿v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1202 (“A prior judgment operates as a¿collateral¿estoppel¿on issues which were raised, notwithstanding that some factual matters or legal arguments which could have been presented in the prior case were not.”). Also, these claims are not new to this action either, as over four months have passed after discovery of the alleged new information. 

Further, while Clinton seeks to file this cross-complaint as compulsory, the causes of action in the cross-complaint are not “related” to those in Plaintiff’s complaint. CCP § 426.30. They do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences as those alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint, as this action arises from allegedly defamatory statements made about Boladian in Clinton’s autobiography and interview, not from non-payment of royalties or ownership disputes. CCP § 426.30 provides that ‘if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded.’" Morris v. Blank (2001) 94 Cal. App. 4th 823, 831. Here, the Court finds that these are not related causes of action and therefore do not comprise a compulsory cross-complaint.

Lastly, this motion for leave is inexcusably untimely. Plaintiffs filed this action more than four years ago in 2015 and Clinton has already brought essentially identical claims nine years ago in the 2011 Litigation. Given that the trial is scheduled in less than three weeks, allowing this leave and further delaying this litigation would unduly prejudice Plaintiffs and impede the judicial economy. 

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiffs to give notice.

Dated:

__________________________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Superior Court Judge

Case Number: BC576665    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: 51

Regarding the second cause of action for defamation, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant made “approximately fifteen (15) separate defamatory statements in his autobiography.” (MSJ 13:19-20.) Plaintiffs argue that the “allegations” contained within the autobiography “all accuse Mr. Boladian of highly offensive criminal acts and are automatically defamatory per se.” (Id. 13:25-26; Charney v. Standard Gen., L.P., (2017) 10 Cal. App. 5th 149, 157.) Plaintiffs contend that Boladian is a “private figure,” which thus requires only a showing that Defendant negligently published the defamatory statement. (Brown v. Kelly Broad. Co. (1989) 48 Cal. 3d 711, 742, holding that “a private person need prove only negligence (rather than malice) to recover for defamation.”)

Plaintiffs proceed to conduct an argument for 15 allegedly defamatory statements contained with Defendant’s autobiography. In support of each argument, Plaintiffs refer the Court to “U.F. 88.” U.F. (Undisputed Fact) 88, in turn, cites to “Busch Decl. ¶ 35; NOL Ex. 42 ¶ 130.” Paragraph 35 of the Busch declaration reads merely that “[a] true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Complaint in this litigation is attached to the Notice of Lodgment as Exhibit 43.” Thus, Plaintiffs are simply referring the Court to the allegations of the Complaint. Paragraph 130 of the Complaint reads: “[t]hese statements from the Clinton Brook [sic] include, but are not limited to, the following:,” and cites to various portions of the autobiography, lettered (a) through (o). (Compl. ¶ 130.)

In sum, it appears that the only “evidence” pertaining to the allegedly defamatory statements contained with Defendant’s autobiography is the Complaint which purports to cite to various pages of the “Clinton Book.”

Allegations of a complaint do not constitute evidence. As Plaintiffs’ separate statement refers only to the allegations of the Complaint for purposes of this argument, and because a review of all evidence submitted concurrently with this Motion reveals no evidence pertaining to this argument, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing the non-existence of a triable issue as to the publication of a defamatory statement.

Because it does not appear that Defendant is contesting that the alleged defamatory statements are contained within the autobiography, the Court is inclined to continue the hearing to allow Plaintiffs to submit evidence of the alleged defamatory statements. If further evidence is submitted, Plaintiffs should incorporate citations to that evidence within their argument.

The Court is not prepared to issue a tentative ruling on the other matters raised in the motion.