This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/31/2020 at 06:21:20 (UTC).

GABRIEL RUEDA VS EMMANUEL D PACQUIAO ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/24/2016 GABRIEL RUEDA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against EMMANUEL D PACQUIAO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GREGORY W. ALARCON, JOHN P. DOYLE, LUIS A. LAVIN, ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE and SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1486

  • Filing Date:

    02/24/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GREGORY W. ALARCON

JOHN P. DOYLE

LUIS A. LAVIN

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Not Classified By Court

RUEDA GABRIEL

SALVADOR GABRIEL

RUEDA GABRIEL AKA GABRIEL SALVADOR

PALMER RICHARD "RICHIE"

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 - 25

SHOWTIME ENTERTAINMENT INC.

CBS CORPORATION

ROACH FREDERICK

PACQUIAO EMMANUEL D.

DAVIDSON KEITH M.

SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC

SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC.

Intervenor and Not Classified By Court

PALMER RICHARD "RICHIE"

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KHAN AMMAN A. ESQ.

PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP

PIERCE JOHN MARK

KHAN AMMAN AHMED

TERZIAN DAN D.

DUBIN DANIEL

Defendant Attorneys

BASINGER G. JILL

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP

O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

LIANG LY LLP

MARROSO DAVID JEFFREY

LIANG JASON L

INNAMORATI DANIEL JASON

BRENNER LEE SCOTT

BASINGER GEULA JILL

BECKER ANDREAS

LY JOHN K

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling - Amended Notice of Ruling and Withdrawal of Prior Notice of Ruling dated 10/18/18

10/22/2018: Notice of Ruling - Amended Notice of Ruling and Withdrawal of Prior Notice of Ruling dated 10/18/18

Notice of Lodging - Notice of Lodging documents under seal in support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Pacquiao's Motion for Summary Adjudication

1/22/2019: Notice of Lodging - Notice of Lodging documents under seal in support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Pacquiao's Motion for Summary Adjudication

Separate Statement

8/6/2019: Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO THEIR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE)

8/6/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO THEIR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE)

NOTICE OF COURT?S ORDER

12/18/2017: NOTICE OF COURT?S ORDER

DEFENDANTS CBS CORPORATION'S AND SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC.'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A DISCOVERY REFEREE

1/23/2018: DEFENDANTS CBS CORPORATION'S AND SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC.'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A DISCOVERY REFEREE

PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CBS/SHOWTIME'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A DISCOVERY REFEREE

1/24/2018: PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CBS/SHOWTIME'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A DISCOVERY REFEREE

Minute Order -

2/26/2018: Minute Order -

PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PACQUIAO'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE EIGHTH AND NINTH CAUSES OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE, ETC.

7/13/2016: PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PACQUIAO'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE EIGHTH AND NINTH CAUSES OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE, ETC.

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER & RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DENYING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO THIRD-PARTY WITNESS NEAL MARSHALL ISSUED BY DEFENDAN

10/24/2016: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER & RULING GRANTING PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DENYING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO THIRD-PARTY WITNESS NEAL MARSHALL ISSUED BY DEFENDAN

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

2/16/2017: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/7/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO 6-28-17

6/15/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO 6-28-17

NOTICE OF COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS CBS CORPORATION AND SHOWTIME NETWORK INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF THIRD-PARTY NEAL MARSHALL AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS HE

8/11/2017: NOTICE OF COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS CBS CORPORATION AND SHOWTIME NETWORK INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER RE: DEPOSITION OF THIRD-PARTY NEAL MARSHALL AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS HE

Minute Order -

9/7/2017: Minute Order -

PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED IN SUPPORT OF HIS AMENDED MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT EMMANUEL PACQUIAO TO PROVIDE VERIFIED RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINT

10/16/2017: PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED IN SUPPORT OF HIS AMENDED MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT EMMANUEL PACQUIAO TO PROVIDE VERIFIED RESPONSES AND DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO PLAINT

DECLARATION OF EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

11/1/2017: DECLARATION OF EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EMMANUEL PACQUIAO'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE MOTION FOR AN OSC AGAINST PACQUIAO FOR REFUSING TO ATTEND A COURT- ORDERED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE;

11/13/2017: PLAINTIFF GABRIEL RUEDA'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EMMANUEL PACQUIAO'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S REPLY RE MOTION FOR AN OSC AGAINST PACQUIAO FOR REFUSING TO ATTEND A COURT- ORDERED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE;

497 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/10/2020
  • Hearing08/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Hearing06/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Hearing06/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Hearing06/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2020
  • Hearing04/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2020
  • DocketNotice (OF RESCHEDULED HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS VIACOMCBS INC. AND SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC.?S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THEIR SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET THREE)); Filed by CBS Corporation (Defendant); Showtime Networks, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Joint Stipulation and Order re: Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing Date and Opposition Due Date on Defendants CBS & Showtime's Anti-SLAPP); Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (re: Plaintiff Gabriel Rueda?s Ex Parte Ap- plication to Continue Hearing Date and Opposition Due Date on Defendants CBS Corp. and Showtime Net- works, Inc.?s Special Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint Under Code Civ. 425.16); Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (re: Plaintiff Gabriel Rueda?s Ex Parte Ap- plication to Seal Portions of (i) Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing Date and (ii) Declaration of Amman A. Khan); Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Seal Portions of Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
1,011 More Docket Entries
  • 03/18/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2016
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2016
  • Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 36; Non-Appearance Case Review - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2016
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2016-03-14 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2016
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2016
  • DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2016
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC611486    Hearing Date: June 22, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gabriel Rueda

OPPOSITION: Defendants Viacom CBS Inc. and Showtime Networks Inc.

On October 18, 2019, Defendants Viacom CBS Inc., and Showtime Networks Inc., (hereinafter, “Defendants”) filed an anti-SLAP motion, which stayed discovery. Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion seeks to strike Rueda’s eighth and ninth causes of action for extortion and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).

On February 13, 2020, Rueda filed the instant motion to lift the stay on discovery. Plaintiff requests that the stay be lifted in order for him to depose Davidson and to serve document requests on Davidson, Craig Susser (“Susser”) (his former employer), and Leigh-Ann Salinas (“Salinas”), the individual who recorded the June 24th conversation between Rueda and Davidson. On March 9, 2020, Defendants filed an opposition. On March 13, 2020, Rueda filed a reply.

Standard: Under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, subdivision (g), all discovery in a lawsuit is “stayed upon the filing of a notice of [an anti-SLAPP motion].” If a party files a noticed motion and makes a showing of good cause, “[t]he court … may order that specified discovery be conducted.” (§ 425.16, subd. (g).) To justify lifting the discovery stay, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the proposed discovery is both necessary in the context of the issues raised by the anti-SLAPP motion and must explain what facts the plaintiff expects to uncover. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Steinberg (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 568, 593. The decision whether to lift the discovery stay is within the trial court’s discretion. Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 604, 617.

Analysis: Rueda states that the requested discovery is necessary to establish “(a) a prima facie case of intent to (i) attempt to extort and (ii) inflict emotional distress and (b) defeat CBS/Showtime’s affirmative defense that communications between Davidson and [Rueda] are protected by the litigation privilege.” (Mtn., p. 14.)

Davidson: Rueda states that he needs to depose Davidson concerning his assertion that the litigation privilege applies to the extortion and IIED claims. Defendants allege that Rueda’s statements, e.g., “make this messy” or that he would go “to the press”, indicate that Rueda was seriously contemplating litigation when he spoke with Davidson on June 24.

“The litigation privilege applies ‘to any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action.’ [Citation.] “‘The privilege ‘is not limited to statements made during a trial or other proceedings, but may extend to steps taken prior thereto, or afterwards.’ [Citation.]” Malin v. Singer (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1300. “The litigation privilege is absolute; it applies, if at all, regardless of whether the communication was made with malice or the intent to harm.” Kashian v. Harriman (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 892, 913.

“‘[A] threat to commence litigation will be insufficient to trigger application of the privilege if it is actually made as a means of inducing settlement of a claim, and not in good faith contemplation of a lawsuit.” Dickinson v. Cosby (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 655, 682. “‘[A] threat to file a lawsuit would be insufficient to activate the privilege if the threat is merely a negotiating tactic and not a serious proposal made in good faith contemplation of going to court.’” (Ibid.)

The Court finds that Rueda has failed to establish good cause to depose Davidson. Rueda correctly notes that whether litigation was contemplated in good faith is a question of fact. Action Apartment Assn., Inc v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1251. Defendants’ argument is that Rueda was seriously contemplating litigation based on the statements he made in the recorded conversation. Rueda argues that he is entitled to depose Davidson to at the very least “demonstrate that…not once did [Rueda] specifically propose litigation as a means to resolve his claim….” However, there is no requirement that for the litigation privilege to apply the plaintiff must specifically state that they are contemplating litigation. The Court is unclear as to what relevant facts about the litigation privilege would be revealed by the deposition of Davidson because Defendants have already stated why they believe the litigation privilege applies, i.e., the statements made by Rueda.

Rueda also argues that he needs to take discovery on the intention elements of extortion and IIED. The elements of civil extortion are the same elements as criminal extortion. The elements of extortion require that a defendant obtain property from another using force or fear. Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 326. The elements of IIED are (1) the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard for the possibility of causing, emotional distress; (2) plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress; and (3) defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff s extreme or severe emotional distress. Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 965, 1001.

Defendants argue that intent is not at issue in the Anti-SLAPP motion. Defendants state that the litigation privilege applies regardless if the intent was to harm. Kashian v. Harriman (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 892, 913. The Court agrees that intent is not relevant to the application of the litigation privilege.

Susser: The Court finds that Rueda has not demonstrated good cause to serve the document request on Susser. Rueda alleges that Susser’s declaration states that “Rueda threatened to sue Moonves and [denies] that he was pressured by Davidson to fire Plaintiff.” (Mtn, 8:7-8.) Susser’s declaration states that Davidson contacted him and informed him that Rueda was threatening to sue Moonves but that neither Davidson nor Moonves wanted any retaliatory action taken against Rueda. (Susser Decl., ¶¶ 4, 7.) Susser further states that he called Moonves and apologized for the situation and that Moonves stated that he did not want Rueda to be punished. (Susser Decl., ¶ 8.) Susser does not have any personal knowledge about Rueda threatening to sue as he only heard about that from Davidson. The only other purpose for discovery would be to challenge Susser’s assertion that he was not pressured by Davidson to terminate Rueda. However, Defendants are correct that discovery may not be obtained solely to challenge an opponent’s declaration. Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP v. Lahiji (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 882, 891.

Salinas: As to Salinas, Defendants correctly note that Rueda fails to specify in his motion what facts he expects to uncover via their document request. In their reply, Rueda provides the declaration of an expert in recording techniques who alleges that there are potential issues with the authenticity/completeness of the recording. (Calderone Decl., ¶¶ 7-9.) Generally, arguments raised for the first time on reply are not taken into account. San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308.

However, considering how critical the recording is to the matter, the Court finds that there is good cause for Rueda to serve requests for documents on Salinas and Davidson about the recording.

Conclusion: Rueda’s motion to lift the discovery stay is DENIED except that Rueda may serve document requests on Davidson and Salinas regarding the recording.