Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13K views

    McBride v. Germanotta

    Uploaded by

    Billboard
    A ruling by a Los Angeles judge that Lady Gaga is not obligated to pay out on a $500,000 “no questions asked” reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs to a woman who was criminally charged over the violent 2021 incident.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    McBride v. Germanotta

    Uploaded by

    Billboard
    13K views4 pages
    A ruling by a Los Angeles judge that Lady Gaga is not obligated to pay out on a $500,000 “no questions asked” reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs to a woman who was criminally charged over the violent 2021 incident.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A ruling by a Los Angeles judge that Lady Gaga is not obligated to pay out on a $500,000 “no questions asked” reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs to a woman who was criminally charged over the violent 2021 incident.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    13K views4 pages

    McBride v. Germanotta

    Uploaded by

    Billboard
    A ruling by a Los Angeles judge that Lady Gaga is not obligated to pay out on a $500,000 “no questions asked” reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs to a woman who was criminally charged over the violent 2021 incident.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    Civil Division
    Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 56

    23STCV04105 July 10, 2023


    JENNIFER MCBRIDE vs STEFANI J. GERMANOTTA 8:30 AM

    Judge: Honorable Holly J. Fujie CSR: Deanna Z. Haakar, CSR #10309


    Judicial Assistant: O.Chavez ERM: None
    Courtroom Assistant: B. Chavez Deputy Sheriff: None

    APPEARANCES:
    For Plaintiff(s): Khanh Tran by LACC; Greta Williams (Present)
    For Defendant(s): Stefani J. Germanotta (Present)

    NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    The matter is held.

    The court issued its tentative ruling and hears oral argument.

    The court adopts it tentative ruling which becomes the order of the court.

    The Demurrer - without Motion to Strike filed by Stefani J. Germanotta on 06/09/2023 is


    Sustained with Leave to Amend. MOVING PARTY: Defendant Stefani J. Germanotta (“Moving
    Defendant”)

    RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

    The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

    BACKGROUND

    Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud by false
    promise; and (3) fraud by misrepresentation.

    In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: After two of her pet dogs were stolen at gunpoint,
    Moving Defendant offered to pay a reward of $500,000 in exchange for the return of her dogs.
    (See Complaint ¶¶ 10-11.) On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff contacted Moving Defendant and
    delivered the dogs to a police station. (Complaint ¶ 14.) Moving Defendant subsequently refused
    Plaintiff’s demand for the $500,000 reward. (Complaint ¶¶ 16-17.)

    Minute Order Page 1 of 4


    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
    Civil Division
    Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 56

    23STCV04105 July 10, 2023


    JENNIFER MCBRIDE vs STEFANI J. GERMANOTTA 8:30 AM

    Judge: Honorable Holly J. Fujie CSR: Deanna Z. Haakar, CSR #10309


    Judicial Assistant: O.Chavez ERM: None
    Courtroom Assistant: B. Chavez Deputy Sheriff: None

    On June 9, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the Complaint on the
    grounds that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

    REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    Moving Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. While the Court takes judicial
    notice of the existence of court documents, it does not take notice of the truth of the matters
    stated therein. (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97,
    113.)

    DISCUSSION

    Meet and Confer

    The meet and confer requirement has been met.

    Legal Standard

    A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law. (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare
    (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) The court accepts as true all material factual allegations
    and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law,
    opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts. (Shea Homes
    Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.) With respect to
    a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the
    facts pleaded. (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.) A demurrer will be sustained
    without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by
    amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

    The Demurrer primarily argues that judicially noticeable facts demonstrate that Plaintiff is
    precluded from recovering on any of her claims because of her involvement in the theft of
    Moving Defendant’s dogs and that the Complaint is therefore legally insufficient in its entirety.
    On October 27, 2021, Plaintiff was indicted by a grand jury for receiving stolen property in
    violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) and being an accessory after the fact for her
    involvement in receiving and withholding Moving Defendant’s dogs. (See RJN, Exhibit 2.) On
    December 21, 2022, Plaintiff entered a plea of nolo contendere and was convicted for violating
    Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a). (See RJN, Exhibit 4.)[1]

    Minute Order Page 2 of 4


    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
    Civil Division
    Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 56

    23STCV04105 July 10, 2023


    JENNIFER MCBRIDE vs STEFANI J. GERMANOTTA 8:30 AM

    Judge: Honorable Holly J. Fujie CSR: Deanna Z. Haakar, CSR #10309


    Judicial Assistant: O.Chavez ERM: None
    Courtroom Assistant: B. Chavez Deputy Sheriff: None

    Impact of Plaintiff’s Criminal Conviction on Allegations of the Complaint

    Under Civil Code section 3517, no one can take advantage of his own wrong. (Civ. Code §
    3517.) The unclean hands doctrine demands that a plaintiff act fairly in the matter for which he
    seeks a remedy. (Mendoza v. Ruesga (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 270, 278-79.) A plaintiff must
    come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or be denied relief, regardless of the
    merits of the claim. (Id. at 279.) The unclean hands doctrine is not a legal or technical defense to
    be used as a shield against a particular element of a cause of action. (Id.) Rather, it is an equitable
    rationale for refusing a plaintiff relief where principles of fairness dictate that the plaintiff should
    not recover, regardless of the merits of their claim. (Id.) Whether the defense applies in particular
    circumstances depends on the analogous case law, the nature of the misconduct, and the
    relationship of the misconduct to the claimed injuries. (Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.
    (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 56.) Although the application of the unclean hands defense is usually
    a question of fact, under appropriate circumstances it may be determined as a matter of law.
    (East West Bank v. Rio School Dist. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 742, 752.) A party to a contract
    who acts wrongfully in entering or performing the contract is not entitled to thereafter benefit
    from their wrongdoing by seeking to enforce the contract. (See Filet Menu, Inc. v. C.C.L. & G.,
    Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 852, 864.)

    In relevant part, Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) provides that every person who buys or
    receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
    theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells,
    withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing
    the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for
    not more than one year, or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Penal Code section 1170.
    (Pen. Code § 496, subd. (a).) In addition, under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (c), any
    person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision (a) may bring an action for three times
    the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable
    attorney's fees. (Pen. Code § 496, subd. (c).) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere admits all
    matters essential to the conviction. (People v. Arwood (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 167, 171.)

    It is not reasonably disputed that Plaintiff was convicted of Penal Code section 496, subdivision
    (a) in connection with the criminal proceeding concerning the theft of Moving Defendant’s dogs.
    The allegations in the Complaint are directly related to wrongful conduct that Plaintiff pleaded
    guilty to in the criminal proceeding. Under the circumstances, Plaintiff’s successful pursuit of
    her current claims would allow her to benefit from her admitted wrongdoing. In addition, Penal
    Code section 496, subdivision (c) allows an injured party to pursue a civil action to recover
    damages. Impliedly, this provision negates Plaintiff’s potential damages because she would be
    Minute Order Page 3 of 4
    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
    Civil Division
    Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 56

    23STCV04105 July 10, 2023


    JENNIFER MCBRIDE vs STEFANI J. GERMANOTTA 8:30 AM

    Judge: Honorable Holly J. Fujie CSR: Deanna Z. Haakar, CSR #10309


    Judicial Assistant: O.Chavez ERM: None
    Courtroom Assistant: B. Chavez Deputy Sheriff: None

    required to pay restitution to Moving Defendant.

    The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer with 20 days leave to amend. If Plaintiff files an
    amended pleading that is successfully challenged by a demurrer, the Court will consider denying
    Plaintiff further leave to amend.

    Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

    Dated this 10th day of July 2023

    /s/ Holly J. Fujie


    _____________________
    Hon. Holly J. Fujie
    Judge of the Superior Court

    [1] Plaintiff was not convicted of being an accessory after the fact

    Minute Order Page 4 of 4

    You might also like