Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/23/2021 at 13:16:45 (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, SAMANTHA JESSNER and DAVID J. COWAN. 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

DAVID J. COWAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Not Classified By Court

RUEDA GABRIEL

SALVADOR GABRIEL

RUEDA GABRIEL AKA GABRIEL SALVADOR

PALMER RICHARD "RICHIE"

Plaintiff and Appellant

RUEDA GABRIEL AKA GABRIEL SALVADOR

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.

Not Classified By Court and Intervenor

PALMER RICHARD "RICHIE"

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KHAN AMMAN A. ESQ.

PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP

PIERCE JOHN MARK

DUBIN DANIEL

KHAN AMMAN AHMED

TERZIAN DAN D.

GALLO JOSEPH

Defendant Attorneys

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP

BASINGER G. JILL

O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

LIANG LY LLP

MARROSO DAVID JEFFREY

BRENNER LEE SCOTT

BECKER ANDREAS

BASINGER GEULA JILL

LY JOHN K

LIANG JASON L

INNAMORATI DANIEL JASON

BRENNER LEE S.

GODINO MICHAEL CARMINE

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING DATES

9/10/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING DATES

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

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;

655 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/10/2022
  • 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 Pleadings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2022
  • 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 Deposition

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2021
  • Hearing08/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2021
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal (for "U1" Appeal); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Deposition) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • 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 Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for 10 Day Extension of Time ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Ex Parte Application for 10 Day Extension of Time ...) of 05/12/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
1,226 More Docket Entries
  • 03/18/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2016
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    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
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Gabriel Rueda (Plaintiff)

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.

Evidentiary Objections

Defendants CBS/Showtime Objections filed March 18, 2021:

General Brief:

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.

 

Discussion

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.

Factual Background

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.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SHOWTIME NETWORKS is a litigant

Latest cases where CBS CORPORATION FKA VIACOM INC. SUCCESSOR BY MERGER WITH CBS CORPORATION FKA WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO BF STURTEVANT is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BASINGER G. JILL