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, SAMANTHA JESSNER and DAVID J. COWAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
GREGORY W. ALARCON
JOHN P. DOYLE
LUIS A. LAVIN
ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE
DAVID J. COWAN
RUEDA GABRIEL AKA GABRIEL SALVADOR
PALMER RICHARD "RICHIE"
RUEDA GABRIEL AKA GABRIEL SALVADOR
DOES 1 - 25
SHOWTIME ENTERTAINMENT INC.
PACQUIAO EMMANUEL D.
DAVIDSON KEITH M.
SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC
SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC.
PALMER RICHARD "RICHIE"
KHAN AMMAN A. ESQ.
PIERCE JOHN MARK
PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
KHAN AMMAN AHMED
TERZIAN DAN D.
MARROSO DAVID JEFFREY
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
BASINGER G. JILL
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
LIANG LY LLP
LIANG JASON L
INNAMORATI DANIEL JASON
BRENNER LEE S.
BRENNER LEE SCOTT
BASINGER GEULA JILL
LY JOHN K
GODINO MICHAEL CARMINE
2/13/2020: Motion re: - MOTION RE: LIFT STAY ON DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO 425.16(G); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; KHAN DECLARATION; RUEDA DECLARATION
2/19/2020: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER - JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATES ON MOTION TO PARTIALLY LIFT DISCOVERY STAY AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S CAUSES OF ACTION
2/20/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: "JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE...) OF 02/20/2020
2/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: "JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE...)
2/21/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PARTIALLY LIFT STAY ON DISCOVERY
2/27/2020: Request for Judicial Notice
3/9/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PARTIALLY LIFT STAY ON DISCOVERY
3/9/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL C. GODINO IN SUPPORT OF VIACOMCBS DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PARTIALLY LIFT STAY ON DISCOVERY
3/13/2020: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PARTIALLY LIFT STAY ON DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CCP 425.16(G); CALDERON DECL.; SUPP. KHAN DECL.; NACION DECL.
3/16/2020: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT VIACOMCBS INC.'S NOTICE OF NAME CHANGE
3/17/2020: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone
3/18/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PARTIALLY LIFT STAY ON DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CCP 425.16(G)
3/18/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING SE...) OF 03/18/2020
3/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: CONTINUATION OF THE HEARING SE...)
3/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: ADVANCEMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOT...)
3/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: ADVANCEMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOT...) OF 03/23/2020
3/30/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ADVANCING HEARING DATE OF MOTION TO PARTIALLY LIFT STAY
4/15/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF DISASSOCIATION OF DANIEL DUBIN
Hearing03/10/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the PleadingsRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/12/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel DepositionRead MoreRead Less
Hearing08/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Attorney FeesRead MoreRead Less
DocketAppeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal (for "U1" Appeal); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Deposition) - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for 10 Day Extension of Time to Bring Peremptory Writ as to April 29, 2021 Order Granting Motion for Summary Adjudication; Declaration of Amman Khan, Esq.)) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for 10 Day Extension of Time ...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Ex Parte Application for 10 Day Extension of Time ...) of 05/12/2021); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 11:00 AM in Department 36; Non-Appearance Case Review - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2016-03-14 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC611486 Hearing Date: April 8, 2021 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Defendants ViacomCBS Inc. (f/k/a CBS Corporation) and Showtime Networks Inc. (Joined by Defendants Emmanuel Pacquiao and Frederik Roach)
OPPOSITION: Plaintiff Gabriel Rueda
The issue in this case is whether Plaintiff Gabriel Rueda (“Rueda”) is owed a fee for setting up the meeting that helped facilitate a 2015 boxing match between Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Emmanuel “Manny” Pacquiao.
Defendants ViacomCBS Inc. (f/k/a CBS Corporation) and Showtime Networks Inc. (collectively, “CBS” or “Defendants”) move for summary adjudication of the following causes of action:
2) Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract;
3) Common Count for Labor, Work, and Services;
4) Quantum Meruit;
7) Unjust Enrichment.
Defendants CBS/Showtime Objections filed March 18, 2021:
Obj. 1, SUSTAINED.
Obj. 2 (Rueda Depo. 98:13-99:7) OVERRULED as to the first question and answer only,
and then SUSTAINED as everything after that first YES answer.
CBS/Showtime Amended Response Objections filed March 22, 2021:
Sussman Decl. of March 19, 2021
Obj. 1, OVERRULED.
Obj. 2-12, SUSTAINED. Sussman’s opinion declaration not is relevant and is an
improper legal conclusion.
Evidence Lodged under Protective Order Claim
Plaintiff’s Appendix of Unredacted Evidence (excerpts for transcripts of the Deposition of Moonves and Arum) and Plaintiff’s Compendium of Out-of-State Authorities, both lodged in support of Opposition, are de-designated as confidential; the Court finds no basis to seal these from the public under CRC 2.550 et seq.
A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. CCP 437c(f)(1)
Defendants’ motion raises three issues:
Issue No. 1: Is there a triable issue of material fact to support Rueda’s breach of implied contract (Second) cause of action?
Issue No. 2: Do Defendants have a duty to pay Rueda for the disclosure [or use] of Rueda’s idea--that a Moonves introduction to Roach just might “kick-start” a discussion between Pacquiao and Mayweather’s promoters, that could lead to a fight--under Rueda’s the breach of implied-in-fact contract claim.
Issue No. 3: Can a quasi-contract claim be based on the disclosure or use of an idea.
Defendants Pacquiao and Frederick Roach (“Roach”), Pacquiao’s trainer, join CBS Defendants’ motion. The Court notes that in March 2019, it previously granted summary adjudication for Pacquaio as to the Third and Fourth causes of action but denied summary adjudication as to the Seventh cause of action.
There is no question that after getting to know Moonves’ love of boxing, that Rueda and Moonves both understood it was common knowledge that discussions of a Mayweather-Pacquiao fight had been “going nowhere” for years; there is also no question that Rueda, who had access to Pacquiao’s famous trainer Roach, came up with the pretty good idea that if the head guy of CBS were to meet directly with Roach, this might be enough to “kick-start” talks between Mayweather and Pacquiao’s promoters, and this could well lead to a fight.
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases