SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

Case No.:

Assigned To: 

Dept.

 

OPPOSITION TO THE

DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO 

THE THIRD AMMENDED 

COMPLAINT

 

      

Action Filed: 

TAC Filed:

Trial Date:

 

Hearing: 

Time: 

Dept. 

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)

Ball v. Superior Court..…

 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)

Carma Devs. (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc., 2 Cal.4th 342 (1992)

 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)

Drink Tank Ventures LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd., 71 Cal.App.5th 528 (2021)

FPI Dev., Inc. v. Nakashima, 231 Cal. App. 3d 367 (1991)

Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006)

Hee Shen Cemetery & Benevolent Association v. Yeong Wo Association, 100 Cal. App. 5th 231 (2024)

Haggard v. Kimberly Quality Care, Inc., 39 Cal. App. 4th 508 (1995)

Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 1130 (2020)

 Kim v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 80 Cal.App.4th 160 (2000)

Mullins v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co…….…

  Shively v. Bozanich, 31 Cal.4th 1230 (2003)

Steiner v. Thexton, 48 Cal. 4th 411 (2010)

 Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017)

STATUTES

 California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10…………………

Labor Code § 1102.5………………………

Civil Code § 47

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Plaintiff  (“xx”) hereby submits this comprehensive Opposition to Defendant Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s (“HFPA”) Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). This employment dispute arises from allegations of wrongful investigation, wrongful expulsion, and discriminatory practices committed by HFPA. Over more than three years of litigation—and through numerous amendments to his original complaint—Asi has developed a TAC that now reflects a fully developed factual record, buttressed by extensive discovery evidence. The TAC clearly supports each cause of action, providing fair notice of all disputed issues. Despite HFPA’s arguments asserting that the TAC fails to state a legally cognizable claim, the record demonstrates that Asi’s claims are sustained by established notice pleading requirements under California law. It is thus vital that the Court address HFPA’s demurrer arguments comprehensively and overrule the demurrer in its entirety, ensuring that the TAC may proceed to trial and discovery.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Allegations in the Third Amended Complaint

More than three years ago, an entertainment news outlet published allegations from three women accusing Plaintiff Asi—then a member of HFPA—of sexual and other misconduct. In response, and consistent with its written policies, HFPA placed Asi on probation and retained an independent firm to investigate the allegations. Before the investigation concluded, Asi initiated this lawsuit in an effort to force HFPA to abandon its inquiry and to compel a recantation of public statements issued in response to the allegations. After the investigation was completed, a majority of the HFPA Board voted to terminate Asi’s membership. 

 

Over the course of this litigation, Asi has repeatedly amended his Complaint often attempting unsuccessfully to shoehorn his longstanding, personal grievances into legal claims until his operative Third Amended Complaint asserts only claims directly related to wrongful investigation, wrongful expulsion, and discriminatory practices. Extensive discovery evidence now corroborates and reinforces his factual allegations, directly refuting many of HFPA’s contentions.

Discovery Evidence in Support of the Claims

Extensive discovery will unearth compelling evidence which not only supports each allegation contained in the TAC but further demonstrates that the Defendant’s actions were conducted in bad faith and in breach of both statutory and common law obligations. The evidence directly counters the Defendant’s contention that the TAC is inconclusive, proving instead that the factual allegations warrant full and fair adjudication on the merits.

III.  LEGAL STANDARDS

  1.   Standards Under  Law

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e), a complaint must set forth facts sufficient to state a cause of action and must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. In Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), the Court held that the surface allegations of a complaint must be taken as true, and a demurrer is proper only where the allegations are “clearly deficient.” Subsequent decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) further clarify that a complaint must merely be plausible on its face. Dismissal on demurrer is proper only if the TAC falls short of this standard.

  1. Statutory and Case Law Authorities

Further supporting the sufficiency of Asi’s TAC are the following authorities:

  • FPI Dev., Inc. v. Nakashima, 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 383 (1991)  requiring the pleading of specific contractual terms.
  • Bianco v. H.F. Ahmanson & Co., 897 F. Supp. 433, 439–40 (C.D. Cal. 1995) establishing that internal policies disclaiming contractual rights do not create enforceable obligations.
  • Haggard v. Kimberly Quality Care, Inc., 39 Cal. App. 4th 508, 522–23 (1995)  confirming that non-contractual employee policies cannot establish a breach of contract.
  • Steiner v. Thexton, 48 Cal. 4th 411, 421 (2010) which underscores that, without a bargained-for exchange, no enforceable contract exists.
  • Hee Shen Cemetery & Benevolent Association v. Yeong Wo Association, 100 Cal. App. 5th 231, 240 (2024) addressing the limits of the California Dental abstention doctrine.
  • Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006) – cautioning against dismissing well-supported claims via demurrer.
  • Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017) providing guidance on conflicts between free speech and confidentiality issues.
  • Kim v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 80 Cal.App.4th 160 (2000) and Carma Devs. (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc., 2 Cal.4th 342 (1992) addressing implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing in contract claims.
  • Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 1130 (2020) and Drink Tank Ventures LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd., 71 Cal.App.5th 528 (2021) pertinent to tortious interference claims.

 

IV:ARGUMENTS

A. Sufficiency of the Third Amended Complaint  

The TAC contains factual allegations that, when read in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, state a claim for relief. Pursuant to the established standards, the pleading need not contain exhaustive details but must merely give fair notice of the Plaintiff’s claims. The allegations set forth wrongful investigation, expulsion, and discriminatory practices with sufficient specificity to inform the Defendant on the nature of the claims. The balance of the evidence, as corroborated by discovery, supports these claims and dispels any notion that the TAC is inconclusive or inadequate in its allegations.

  

In Mullins v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., the court applied a liberal construction to a complaint involving complex factual allegations. Similarly, Ball v. Superior Court reiterates that complaints in employment disputes, which necessarily involve multifaceted issues and factual inferences, must be read in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the TAC navigates the boundaries of the pleading by asserting a prima facie case that is now bolstered by established discovery evidence.

B. Specific Responses to Deficiencies Raised in the Demurrer

 Alleged Lack of Particularity  

The Defendant contends that the TAC is vague and insufficiently supported. However, this argument runs contrary to the full record. The complaint, when considered in conjunction with the discovery exhibits, presents a clear and coherent narrative that connects the Defendant’s wrongful actions to causation and damages suffered by the  Plaintiff . The key evidentiary materials brought to the surface directly addresses any perceived deficiencies by corroborating the incident-specific and systematic nature of the Defendant’s misconduct.

 

 Wrongful Conduct Beyond Protected Speech  

The Defendant’s demurrer improperly seeks to shield its wrongful acts behind vague generalizations about industry practices and internal policies. As was held in Flatley v. Mauro, any wrongful conduct that breaches internal policies meant to protect employees is not entitled to the broad immunity claimed by Defendants. The TAC meticulously alleges factual details which rightfully bolsters the Plaintiff’s claims of   systemic abuse claimed by the Defendant.

The Discovery Record in Context  

The extensive discovery record further validates the sufficiency of the TAC, providing the necessary factual underpinning to every allegation. The discovery evidence eradicates any ambiguity alleged by the Defendant by detailing a pattern of behavior that is consistent with the TAC’s claims. As noted in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, discovery is the appropriate forum to test factual theories and, as such, the TAC’s sufficiency should not be undermined by speculation.

Breach of Contract Claims

HFPA contends that Asi’s breach of contract claims are fatally deficient because the TAC alleges multiple breaches without identifying enforceable contractual terms. However, Asi’s TAC alleges that HFPA’s internal policies including its Reporting Policy, Whistleblower Policy, and Code of Conduct created an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing upon which Asi reasonably relied. The absence of explicitly stated contractual obligations does not preclude a breach claim where intra-association understandings are concerned. Authorities such as FPI Dev., Inc. v. Nakashima, 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 383 (1991) and Bianco v. H.F. Ahmanson & Co., 897 F. Supp. 433, 439–40 (C.D. Cal. 1995) support that a breach of an implied contract may be sustained with a sufficient factual basis. Additionally, Kim v. Regents of Univ. of Cal, 80 Cal.App.4th 160 (2000) and Carma Devs. (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc, 2 Cal.4th 342 (1992) confirm that an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may be inferred even without express contractual terms.

Tortious Interference and Retaliation Claims

HFPA argues that the TAC fails to establish claims for tortious interference and retaliation due to an alleged lack of independently wrongful acts or a clear causal connection between HFPA’s conduct and Asi’s harm. In contrast, the TAC contains detailed allegations regarding HFPA’s investigation process, the imposition of probation, and Asi’s subsequent termination. As held in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 1130 (2020) and Drink Tank Ventures LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd., 71 Cal.App.5th 528 (2021), it is sufficient for a plaintiff to plead facts that create a prima facie case for these claims. HFPA’s reliance on conclusory allegations is misplaced in light of the robust and specific allegations contained in the TAC.

  1. Defamation, Privacy, and IIED Claims

Although HFPA contends that Asi’s claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) fail because they are time-barred or insufficiently detailed, the TAC frames these claims in connection with wrongful investigation and termination that have irreparably harmed Asi’s reputation. The overall factual narrative, even without every verbatim statement, is sufficient to state a plausible claim for defamation and associated torts. Flatley v. Mauro, 39 Cal.4th 299 (2006) and Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017) caution against dismissing claims when discovery is likely to further substantiate the allegations.

   vii.  Application of the California Dental Abstention Doctrine

 HFPA relies on the California Dental abstention doctrine to argue that the TAC involves disputes solely of an intra-associational nature which should not be subject to judicial review. However, as established in Hee Shen Cemetery & Benevolent Association v. Yeong Wo Association, 100 Cal. App. 5th 231 (2024), the doctrine applies only to disputes strictly confined to internal governance. Asi’s TAC alleges wrongful investigation and termination that extend beyond internal matters and adversely affect his employment and professional reputation—thus judicial review is warranted.

 

C. Public Policy Considerations

 Full Adjudication on the Merits  

The TAC is buttressed by substantive evidence which will demonstrate the potential for a meaningful resolution on the merits. A ruling in favor of the Defendant’s demurrer would not only stifle legitimate claims but also diminish the public’s confidence in the fairness of any employment dispute resolution.

 Use of Demurrers in Employment Disputes  

The misuse of demurrers as a tactical tool to avoid scrutiny has been cautioned against in Flatley v. Mauro and other decisions. These authorities affirm that when discovery supports the allegations of a complaint, the demurrer must yield to the overarching principles of justice and equity, ensuring that wrongs are fully examined and remedied in the judicial process.

 

  1. CONCLUSION

Because Defendant’s Demurrer is based on extrinsic evidence and Defendant has failed to show any deficiencies in the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, Defendant’s Demurrer should be denied.

 

 

Date: 

______________________________

 

Pine Street

Santa