SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

By Defendants, Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. and C3 Presents, LLC To Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint

The above matter is not called as Counsel have submitted to the Court's tentative ruling via
email.

The Court's tentative ruling is adopted as the final order as follows:

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

On February 24, 2022, Devante Caldwell; Calvin Webb; Terrence Hackett; Kevin Gomez; Jorky
Peralta; Felton Binns; Jerome Watkins; and Alrick Cooper, III (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a
Complaint against Live Nation Worldwide, Inc; C3 Presents, LLC; Bobby Dee Presents, Inc;
Snoop Dogg’s LLC; LAFAC Sports, LLC; Contemporary Services Corporation; and Does 1 to
20.

The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserts causes of action for:

1) Negligence;

2) Negligence – Premises Liability;

Minute Order Page 1 of 12
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED); and

4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).

On July 18, 2022, Defendants Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. (“Live Nation”) and C3 Presents,
LLC (“C3”) filed a demurrer and a motion to strike the Plaintiffs’ FAC.

Plaintiffs filed opposing papers on November 28, 2022. Defendants submitted a reply on
December 07, 2022.

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the moving party must meet and confer in person or
by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to attempt to reach an agreement that would
resolve the objections to the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) “Any determination
by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or
sustain a demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)

The meet and confer requirement has been met. (Pompeo Decl. ¶¶ 3-6, Ex. A-C.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Demurrer

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under
attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan
(1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts
sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the
plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012)
53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the
demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or
conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)
Minute Order Page 2 of 12
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

B. Motion to Strike

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of
motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of
Court (CRC), Rule 3.1322(b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and
upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any
pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with
the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 436, subds.
(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential
to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or
disregarded”].)

C. Leave to Amend

“Where the defect raised by a motion to strike or by demurrer is reasonably capable of cure,
leave to amend is routinely and liberally granted to give the plaintiff a chance to cure the defect
in question.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 [Link].4th 1141,
1146.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended
successfully. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)

DISCUSSION

Allegations in FAC

This case arises out of the death of Darrell Caldwell (the decedent), known by his stage name of
Drakeo the Ruler, at the Once Upon a Time in Los Angeles music festival (the “Music
Festival”). The Music Festival took place on December 18, 2021, at the Bank of California
Stadium in Exposition Park, Los Angeles. (FAC Intro.)

Live Nation, along with the other named Defendants, was responsible for organizing, promoting,
selecting, and hiring artists and security personnel. (FAC ¶ 9.) The FAC alleges that Live Nation
and C3 had a duty to implement and execute a security plan to safeguard, detect and prevent
violent incidents from taking place at the Music Festival. (Id., ¶ 11) Live Nation also had the
Minute Order Page 3 of 12
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

exclusive lease agreement to operate, manage, control, and supervise the Bank of California
Stadium during the Music Festival. (Id. ¶ 9.)

The FAC further alleges that Defendants knew or should have known that many of the artists
performing were associates of or affiliated with Los Angeles street gangs. (FAC ¶ 22.)
Specifically, the location of the Music Festival is in an area known colloquially as "South
Central” and that the area is rife with gang activity and boasts one of the highest rates of violent
crime in the city, including, but not limited to assault, robbery, attempted murder, and murder.
(Id.) The decedent faced threats and constant hostility from gang members and others that
stemmed from his exoneration of an attempted murder charge from an alleged Blood gang
member. (Id. ¶ 23.)

The FAC alleges that attendees via social media and news media alleged they were met with
chaos from the onset, with some attendees entering without being searched, passing through any
metal detector, or submitting to any COVID-19 verification procedure. (FAC ¶ 25.)

The performing artists were instructed to enter through a driveway, where they passed through
two “checkpoints”: “the first was simply a booth containing one or two unarmed personnel
members who let through any vehicle that presented an “all-access” pass without searching it or
verifying the identities of the occupants of the vehicle or even whether the number of passes
matched the identity or number of occupants.” (FAC ¶ 26) The second checkpoint had a small
group of security guards who had a drug-sniffing dog and a metal detector. (Id.) On information
and belief, the Plaintiffs allege that the requirement to submit to metal detector searches or a dog
search was imposed arbitrarily and flippantly, with some cars only being cursorily searched
while others were not even searched. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 27) “Of the two cars in which Plaintiffs arrived,
PLAINTIFF ALRICK COOPER III was the only person that was ordered out of the car and
cursorily frisked. No other Plaintiff was searched, nor was either vehicle.” (Id. ¶ 26.)

Plaintiffs further allege that they observed one united caravan of approximately 10 cars filled
with occupants drive past the second checkpoint without being stopped or searched while
shouting gang-related challenges and other verbiage such as “Whoooop” to the Plaintiffs. (FAC ¶
27.) Past the second checkpoint, was the “all-access VIP” area, where the artists were to park and
where their trailers were located. (Id. ¶ 28.) There were no security guards, event staff members,
or law enforcement officers present in this area. (Id.) There were also no cameras or other
deterrents to unlawful activity or violence. (Id.) The decedent arrived in the “all-access” area at
approximately 8:30 p.m. and was scheduled to perform at 8:50 p.m. (Id. ¶ 29.) Within minutes of
his arrival, he and his entourage were attacked. (Id. ¶ 30.) A fight ensued, and no security
Minute Order Page 4 of 12
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

intervened or were present when Plaintiffs Gomez and Peralta were attacked or when the larger
fight broke out. (FAC ¶ 30.) The fight initially involved about 20 people but grew to about 50 to
100 individuals. (FAC ¶¶ 31, 32.)

The mob who attacked the Plaintiffs wore all red and shouted battle cries of “Whooop!” and
“Suuu Whoooop” which were heard from the cars that entered the “all-access VIP” area without
being searched. (FAC ¶ 32.) The fight became more vicious, as captured on video footage, and
security never materialized to intervene. (Id.) Some Plaintiffs sought refuge through the one gate
that separated the VIP area from the stage but were blocked and pushed back from reaching
safety. (Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiffs allege that video footage shows that Plaintiffs were punched, kicked,
and stomped on while on the ground by a mob that outnumbered Plaintiffs and with no
intervention from security. (Id.) Members of the mob produced knives and lunged at the
decedent and the Plaintiffs. (Id.) The decedent was stabbed in the neck and his brother, Plaintiff
Devante Caldwell, witnessed the fatal knife wound and saw his brother suffer blood loss. (Id. ¶
34.) The mob eventually dispersed. (Id.) Since the mob was not searched, and no security
stopped them, their identities were never verified, and the attackers disappeared into anonymity.
(Id. ¶ 35.)

Plaintiffs saw the decedent lose consciousness. (FAC ¶ 35.) Due to the chaos and lack of safety
measures, it took 30 minutes for emergency personnel to reach the decedent. (Id.) The decedent
was transported to the hospital and declared dead at 3:00 a.m. on December 19, 2021, with his
brother Devante by his side. (Id. ¶ 36.)

[Link]

The Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs’ FAC on the basis that it fails to state sufficient facts to
constitute a cause of action against Defendants. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.10 subd. (e).)

1st and 2nd C of A: Negligence and Premises Liability

Both negligence and premises liability causes of action have the same elements. “The elements
of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are (a) a legal duty to use due care;
(b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the
resulting injury.” (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917 [internal quotations
omitted].)
Minute Order Page 5 of 12
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ negligence causes of action fail because Plaintiffs have failed to
allege evidence of prior or similar incidents, to show that harm to Plaintiffs was foreseeable.

“It is clear that foreseeability is but one factor to be weighed in determining whether a landowner
owes a duty in a particular case.” (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112,
125.) “Prior similar incidents are helpful to determine foreseeability, but they are not necessary.
A rule that limits evidence of foreseeability to prior similar incidents deprives the jury of its role
in determining that question.” (Id. at 127.) “We further explained that foreseeability should be
assessed in light of the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ including such factors as the nature,
condition and location of the premises.” (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6
Cal.4th 666, disapproved of on another grounds by Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512.)
In Ann M., the California Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the owner
because the plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence that the defendant shopping center had
notice of prior incidents of violent criminal assaults and therefore had no duty to provide security
guards in common areas. (Id. at 679.)

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant’s reliance on Ann M. is unavailing because the case was decided
at the summary judgment stage, and not on demurrer, meaning that Ann M.’s pleading was not
insufficient. On demurrer, Plaintiffs need not prove that prior or similar incidents have occurred
on the premises of the Music Festival. "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded
facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer." (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180
[Link].3d 605, 609–610.) Moreover, at issue is the failure to provide any security in the “all
access VIP” area rather than in a common area.

While the determination of a duty is a question of law, “a mixed question of law and fact may
arise out of the relationship of foreseeability to the creation of a duty.” (Musgrove v. Ambrose
Properties (1978) 87 [Link].3d 44, 52.) Here, the FAC sufficiently alleges that security was lax
at the second checkpoint and that despite the presence of security guards and metal detectors,
some vehicles were not adequately searched or not searched at all, thus allowing the assailants to
enter the “all-access VIP” area. (FAC ¶ 27.) “The weight of authority in other jurisdictions,
however, indicates that under analogous circumstances, a landlord is liable even for the first
crime of a particular type.” (Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981) 123 [Link].3d 324,
329.) Although the occurrence of a mob/gang attack may have occurred for the first time,
Defendants may nevertheless be held liable if the facts show that the danger was foreseeable
and/or preventable.

Minute Order Page 6 of 12

 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

The California Supreme Court has explained:

“Thus, as to foreseeability, we have explained that the court's task in determining duty ‘is not to
decide whether a particular plaintiff's injury was reasonably foreseeable in light of a particular
defendant's conduct, but rather to evaluate more generally whether the category of negligent
conduct at issue is sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm experienced that liability may
appropriately be imposed....’ (Citation.)”

(Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 772 [italics original].)

The fact that Defendants knew security would be needed for the event, supports the finding that
the performing artists’ safety was a concern for Defendants and foreseeable to Defendants. The
fact that not all vehicles were searched or that the searches were inadequate and the fact that no
security was present in the “all-access VIP” area are alleged to be negligent acts that were
sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm the Plaintiffs suffered.

Plaintiffs also point out that even if the mob/gang attack was not foreseeable, Defendants owed
an affirmative duty to act and stop the attack once the attack began, yet no one intervened to stop
the attack. (FAC ¶¶ 30, 33, 47.) “Premises liability is grounded in the possession of the premises
and the attendant right to control and manage the premises; accordingly, mere possession with its
attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an
affirmative duty to act.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 [internal
quotations and citations omitted].) Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendants breached a
duty in failing to act in stopping the mob/gang attack once it began.

Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED as two the first and second causes of action.

3rd C of A: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)

California courts have repeatedly recognized that NIED is not an independent tort, but the tort of
negligence such that the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages
apply. (See, e.g., Spates v. Dameron Hospital Association (2003) 114 [Link].4th 208, 213;
Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588.) Emotional
distress damages are generally not authorized in cases other than that of physical injury. (Branch
v. Homefed Bank (1992) 6 [Link].4th 793, 800.) “Recovery for emotional disturbance will be
excluded unless the breach also caused bodily harm or the contract or the breach is of such a kind
that serious emotional disturbance was a particularly likely result.” (Id., citing Rest.2d Contracts,
Minute Order Page 7 of 12
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

§ 353.)

The third cause of action for NIED is asserted by Plaintiff Devante Caldwell the brother of
decedent Darrel Caldwell. (FAC ¶¶ 1, 34.) Plaintiff Devante alleges that Defendants owed a duty
not to cause him emotional distress and that Defendants knew Devante would suffer extreme
emotional distress if Defendants failed to prevent harm from occurring to Devante and to the
decedent in Devante’s presence. (Id. ¶ 54.) Defendants breached this duty by failing to provide
adequate security and/or failing to implement and enforce adequate security protocol when the
dangers of such failures were known given the location of the Music Festival and the scale of the
event. (Id. ¶¶ 55, 56.) But for Defendant’s failure, Devante would not have been subject to a
massive group assault, would not have had to fight for his life, and would not have witnessed his
brother, the decedent being beaten and stabbed. (Id. 57.) Plaintiff Devante tried to save his
brother’s life by attempting to suppress rushing blood, saw his brother lose consciousness, and
ultimately witnessed his brother die. (Id.) Consequently, Plaintiff Devante suffered extreme
emotional distress, mental damages, stress, anxiety, and other psychological harm that will likely
last throughout his life. (Id. ¶ 58.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff Caldwell has failed to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of
action for NIED against Defendants because he did not suffer “severe” emotional distress.

Plaintiff Devante has alleged that he was physically injured. (FAC ¶ 35.) Therefore, he can
sustain an NIED claim both as a direct victim and a bystander. (See Spates v. Dameron Hospital
Association (2003) 114 [Link].4th 208, 213.) “The range of mental or emotional injury
subsumed within the rubric ‘emotional distress’ and for which damages are presently recoverable
‘includes fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation and
indignity, as well as physical pain.’ (Citation.)” (Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 648–
649.) This is exactly what Plaintiff Devante has plead in the FAC. (FAC ¶ 58.)

“Our State Supreme Court has made clear that ‘to recover damages for emotional distress on a
claim of negligence where there is no accompanying personal, physical injury, the plaintiff must
show that the emotional distress was ‘serious.’ (Citation)” (Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions,
LLC (2021) 65 [Link].5th 1145, 1166.) Since, Plaintiff Devante has pled sufficient facts that
he was personally injured by Defendant’s negligent conduct, Devante need not plead that he
suffered emotional distress as a direct victim. (FAC ¶ 58.)

Since there is no independent tort for NIED, the Court construes the NIED cause of action as
subsumed under the negligence cause of action (1st claim) and finds that Plaintiff Devante has
Minute Order Page 8 of 12
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

plead sufficient facts to sustain a cause of action for negligence and a claim for emotional
distress damages.

4th C of A: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are set forth in the
California Supreme Court case of Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903, as
follows: “‘(1) Extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or
reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering
severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional
distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct...The defendant must have engaged in ‘conduct
intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.’” (Id.) Whether
Defendant’s conduct was outrageous, oppressive or malicious is a question of fact for the jury.
(Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering. Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 499.)

The FAC alleges that each Defendant engaged in extreme, outrageous, unlawful, and
unprivileged conduct, including, but not limited to:

(a) Soliciting services of artists and patronage of fans known to be raucous and likely to engage
in dangerous behavior;

(b) with knowledge of the nature of the event, its locale, and its patronage, failed to implement
security protocols sufficient to prevent violence to the artists, members of their entourage, and
concertgoers.

(c) knowingly prevented Plaintiffs from providing their own security despite knowledge about
the dangerous conditions and absence of adequate security;

(d) failing to take reasonable steps to prevent weapons from entering the venue;

(e) failing to intervene during the attack on Plaintiffs;

(f) physically preventing Plaintiffs from reaching a place of safety during the attack by blocking
the only means of escape and corralling Plaintiffs in the space where the attack was ongoing; and

(g) failing to have medical personnel present to administer aid to the harmed individuals.

Minute Order Page 9 of 12

 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

(FAC ¶ 61.)

The FAC further alleges that Defendants intended to cause harm to Plaintiff when they acted
with a reckless disregard of the substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs would suffer extreme
emotional distress. (FAC ¶ 62.) Consequently, the Plaintiffs suffered extreme emotional and
physical distress, “ including, but not limited to terror, nervousness, sleeplessness, anxiety,
worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, physical manifestations of emotional distress,
loss of self-esteem, fear for their safety, disgrace, and loss of enjoyment of life; were prevented
and will continue to be prevented from obtaining the full enjoyment of life; and have sustained
and will continue to sustain a loss of reputation.” (Id. ¶ 63.)

Defendants demurrer on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to plead that Defendants intentionally
allowed people in without being searched. However, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that
Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the probability of causing emotional distress by
virtue of failing to provide adequate security; failing to intervene during the attack and
preventing Plaintiffs from reaching a place of safety. (FAC ¶ 60.)

For conduct to be “outrageous,” it must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually
tolerated in a civilized society. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051.) The
Defendant must either intend his or her conduct to inflict injury or engaged in it with the
realization that injury will result. (Id.) Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress
does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other
trivialities. (Id.) Here, the fact that the Defendants did not intervene and prevented the Plaintiffs
from reaching a place of safety is sufficient to support a finding of outrageous conduct.

Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED as to the fourth cause of action.

II. Motion to Strike

Defendants seek to strike punitive damages from Plaintiffs’ FAC on the basis that Plaintiffs have
failed to show that Defendants acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud.”

Specifically, Defendants seek to strike the following:

1) Page 19, paragraph 52, lines 14 to 18:

Minute Order Page 10 of 12

 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

“DEFENDANTS acted knowingly and willfully, with reckless disregard for the substantial risk
and severe harm Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages
against the DEFENDANTS in order to punish those defendants and to deter them and others
from such conduct in the future.”
2) Page 22, paragraph 64, line 20:

“with malice and oppression, and/or with reckless disregard.”

3) Page 22, paragraph 64, lines 23 to 24:

“Therefore, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to an award of punitive damages for the purpose of
punishing DEFENDANTS, and to deter them and others from such conduct in the future.”
4) Page 23, Prayer for Relief, paragraph 3, lines 7 to 8:

“As against only the individual defendants and not any municipality, punitive damages as
allowed by law.”
To state a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege
specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. (Smith
v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.) The basis for punitive damages must be
pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient.
(Id.)

For a corporate defendant, section 3294, subdivision (b), requires that the plaintiff show that a
managing agent, officer, or director of the corporation authorized or ratified the wrongful
conduct for which punitive damages are sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 3294, subd. (b); White v.
Ultamar (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572.) An individual must be in a corporate policymaking
position in order to be considered a managing agent for the purposes of imposing punitive
damages liability on the corporation. (Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 [Link].4th
1403, 1437.) A “managing agent” includes “only those corporate employees who exercise
substantial independent authority and judgment in their corporate decision-making so that their
decisions ultimately determine corporate policy.” (White, supra, 21 Cal. 4th at p. 566.) While
“supervisors who have broad discretionary powers and exercise substantial discretionary
authority in the corporation could be managing agents,” those “supervisors who have no
discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy would not be
considered managing agents even though they may have the ability to hire or fire other
employees.” (Id.)

Plaintiffs fail to name individual defendants or identify who the managing agents, officers, or
Minute Order Page 11 of 12
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 31

22STCV06905 January 11, 2023

DEVANTE CALDWELL, et al. vs LIVE NATION 8:30 AM
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.

Judge: Honorable Yolanda Orozco CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: M. Ventura ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: T. De La Paz Deputy Sheriff: None

directors are who ratified the wrongful conduct. Although DOE defendants, are named, no facts
are given to show that the DOE defendants are managing agents of Defendants or how the DOE
defendants ratified the wrongful conduct of the corporate Defendants.

Accordingly, the Motion to Strike punitives is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike punitives is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.

Minute Order Page 12 of 12