1 BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

2 John V. Berlinski (State Bar No. 208537)
jberlinski@birdmarella.com
3 Julia B. Cherlow (State Bar No. 290538)
jcherlow@birdmarella.com
4 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
5 Telephone: (310) 201-2100
Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
6
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
7 Jonathan M. Moses (admitted pro hac vice)
Adam L. Goodman (admitted pro hac vice)
8 Remy Grosbard (admitted pro hac vice)
Jessica L. Allen (admitted pro hac vice)
9 51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
10 Telephone: (212) 403-1000
Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12 William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo, LLC

13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
15
WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual, and Case No. 22STCV06081
16 MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California limited
liability company, OPPOSITION TO JOLIE’S REQUEST
17
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT
Plaintiffs, OF DEMURRER TO SECOND
18
AMENDED COMPLAINT;
v.
19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
ANGELINA JOLIE, et al., AUTHORITIES
20
Defendants. Filed concurrently with Opposition to
21
Demurrer, Opposition to Motion to Strike,
22 Request for Judicial Notice, Proposed Order,
and RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. and Declarations
23
Judge: Hon. Lia Martin
24 Dept: 16
Date: November 15, 2023
25 Time: 9:00 a.m.
26
Reservation ID: 269966417033
27 Action Filed: February 17, 2022
Trial Date: Not yet set
28

OPPOSITION TO JOLIE’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

 1 BACKGROUND
2 Angelina Jolie asks the Court to take judicial notice of four documents that she suggests

3 are incorporated by reference into Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”).

4 See Jolie’s Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Demurrer to Pls.’ Second Am. Compl.

5 (Aug. 21, 2023) (“Jolie RJN”) at 2. These include:

6 (1) Two emails and one letter (Exhibits A, D, and E), 1 which are quoted in part in the

7 Complaint. See Complaint ¶¶ 47, 79–80, 92. Jolie relies on these exhibits to argue

8 that an implied-in-fact contract between herself and Plaintiff Pitt never formed and

9 that, as a result, Plaintiffs’ first cause of action fails. See Jolie Demurrer to Pls.’

10 Second Am. Compl. (Aug. 21, 2023) (“Jolie Demurrer”) at 13–15; and

11 (2) A contract (Exhibit B), which is not even referenced in the Complaint.

12 See Complaint ¶ 49. Jolie relies on this exhibit to argue that the alleged

13 implied-in-fact contract does not exist, see Jolie Demurrer at 14, and that the statute

14 of frauds bars Plaintiffs’ implied-in-fact contract claim, see id. at 17.

15 For the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny Jolie’s facially improper request for

16 judicial notice of these Exhibits (A, B, D, and E). Jolie’s attempt to rely on these documents only

17 underscores the fact-based nature of her demurrer and why it should be overruled. See Pls.’ Opp.

18 to Jolie Demurrer at 6.
19 ARGUMENT
20 California courts are generally limited to matters on “the face of the complaint” in

21 adjudicating a demurrer and can consider “matters outside the pleading only if [they] are subject to

22 judicial notice.” Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Cal., 245 Cal. App. 4th 821,

23 834 (2016) (emphasis in original). The “face of the complaint” includes (1) the complaint’s

24 well-pleaded allegations and (2) documents that are attached to the complaint and thus

25

26 1
Jolie appears to have mistakenly identified the relevant emails as Exhibits A and C, rather than
Exhibits A and D. See Jolie RJN at 2. Plaintiffs are not opposing judicial notice of either
27
Exhibit C (a Stipulation and Order filed in Jolie and Pitt’s divorce proceeding) or Exhibit F
28 (Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in this case).

-2-
OPPOSITION TO JOLIE’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 1 “incorporated by reference.” See Frantz v. Blackwell, 189 Cal. App. 3d 91, 94 (1987); Qualcomm,

2 Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 161 Cal. App. 4th 184, 188 n.1 (2008).

3 Exhibits A, B, D, and E are not attached to the Complaint and thus cannot be considered on that

4 basis. Jolie cites no authority, and Plaintiffs have identified none, for the novel proposition that a

5 document becomes part of the pleadings at the demurrer stage merely because it is mentioned in

6 the complaint. See Jolie RJN at 2.

7 Furthermore, judicial notice in this context is cabined to matters expressly outlined in

8 Section 452 of the California Evidence Code, which as relevant here, include “[f]acts and

9 propositions that are of such common knowledge . . . that they cannot reasonably be the subject of

10 dispute” or that “are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of

11 reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Cal. Evid. Code § 452(g)–(h); see also Tenet Healthsystem,

12 245 Cal. App. 4th at 835 (“A matter ordinarily is subject to judicial notice only if [it] is reasonably

13 beyond dispute.” (citation omitted)). Exhibits A, B, D, and E—which comprise three private

14 communications, to which the parties ascribe vastly different meanings, and a contract that is at

15 issue in foreign proceedings—are each subject to intense “dispute,” rendering judicial notice

16 impermissible here.

17 And even if judicial notice were appropriate—which it is not—a court “cannot take

18 judicial notice of the proper interpretation of a document submitted in support of the demurrer.”
19 Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp., 148 Cal. App. 4th 97, 115–16 (2007) (emphasis

20 added) (reversing trial court for taking judicial notice of and interpreting a contract that defendant

21 had attached to its demurrer). Put differently, “[t]aking judicial notice of a document is not the

22 same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.”

23 Herrera v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366, 1375 (2011) (citation omitted).

24 This rule applies with force here, where Jolie is attempting to persuade the Court to take

25 notice not only of the existence of these exhibits but of her fact-based spin on them as well. As

26 made clear by the Complaint and the briefing on Jolie’s demurrer, the proper interpretation of each

27 of Exhibits A, B, D, and E is hotly disputed. See, e.g., Pls.’ Opp. to Jolie Demurrer at 13

28 (disputing the meaning Jolie ascribes to Exhibit A); id. at 13 n.4 (same for Exhibit D);

-3-
OPPOSITION TO JOLIE’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 1 id. at 14 n.5 (same for Exhibit B); see also Jolie Demurrer at 13, 15 (disputing the meaning

2 Plaintiffs ascribe to Exhibits A, D, and E); Complaint ¶ 92 (ascribing meaning to statements and

3 events referenced in Exhibit E that Jolie refuses to credit). Indeed, these exhibits amount to “the

4 very epitome of items [that are] ‘subject to dispute,’ as opposed to ‘not reasonably subject to

5 dispute.’” Tenet Healthsystem, 245 Cal. App. 4th at 835 (emphasis in original) (quoting Cal. Evid.

6 Code § 452). None of these documents actually support Jolie’s fact-based contentions—quite the

7 opposite. Regardless, “[a] demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the

8 truth of disputed facts.” Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage, 184 Cal. App. 3d 369, 374 (1986)

9 (citation omitted).

10 Not surprisingly given these principles, Jolie’s authorities do not support her improper

11 Request. For instance, in Dryden v. Tri-Valley Growers, the court took judicial notice of letters

12 that the plaintiffs had attached to their complaint in another action. 65 Cal. App. 3d 990 (1977).

13 Moreover, the letters clearly confirmed that plaintiffs’ contract had been terminated before the

14 defendant allegedly induced its breach (a fact which the plaintiffs do not appear to have even

15 disputed), thus defeating the plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim. Id. at 997. That is a far cry

16 from the situation here, where Jolie is improperly seeking to persuade the Court to adopt her

17 version of events and draw factual inferences in her favor on a demurrer.

18 Nor do Jolie’s other cases support taking judicial notice of the 2013 contract (Exhibit B).

19 In both cases, the contract of which the court took judicial notice formed the basis of the action.

20 In stark contrast, the 2013 contract that Jolie attached to her demurrer is not even referenced in the

21 Complaint—Plaintiffs are not suing on that contract. See Ascherman v. Gen. Reinsurance Corp.,

22 183 Cal. App. 3d 307, 310 (1986) (taking judicial notice of a reinsurance contract, where the

23 complaint alleged the defendant had received insurance premiums pursuant to that contract);

24 Salvaty v. Cable TV, 165 Cal. App. 3d 798, 800 n.1 (1985) (taking judicial notice of a contract that

25 plaintiffs “referred repeatedly to” in their complaint). And as Plaintiffs explain in their

26 concurrently filed opposition to Jolie’s demurrer, the 2013 contract—which Jolie

27 mischaracterizes—does not remotely support Jolie’s fact-laden arguments in any event.

28 See Plaintiffs’ Opp. to Demurrer at 15 n.5.

-4-
OPPOSITION TO JOLIE’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 1 Jolie will have the opportunity to advance her factual interpretation of these documents.

2 She will likewise have the opportunity to make the highly fact-based arguments that permeate her

3 demurrer. But now is not that time. The case law is clear: “a court cannot by means of judicial

4 notice convert a demurrer into an incomplete evidentiary hearing,” Fremont Indem., 148 Cal. App.

5 4th at 115, “through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of documents whose

6 truthfulness or proper interpretation are disputable,” Joslin, 184 Cal. App. 3d at 374. Jolie’s

7 efforts to do so should be rejected.

8 CONCLUSION
9 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Jolie’s request

10 for judicial notice of Exhibits A, B, D, and E filed in support of her demurrer.

11

12 DATED: October 27, 2023 By:

John V. Berlinski
13
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
14 Jonathan M. Moses (admitted pro hac vice)
Adam L. Goodman (admitted pro hac vice)
15 Remy Grosbard (admitted pro hac vice)
Jessica L. Allen (admitted pro hac vice)
16
BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
17 DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.
John V. Berlinski (State Bar No. 208537)
18 Julia B. Cherlow (State Bar No. 290538)
19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo, LLC
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5-
OPPOSITION TO JOLIE’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 William B. Pitt v. Angelina Jolie

Case No. 22STCV06081
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
5 employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 1875 Century
Park East, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561.
6
On October 27, 2023, I served the following document(s) described as OPPOSITION TO
7 JOLIE’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO
8 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES on the interested parties in this action as follows:
9
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
10
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused the document(s) to be
11 sent from e-mail address jkinsey@birdmarella.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in
the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic
12
message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
13
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
14 foregoing is true and correct.

15 Executed on October 27, 2023, at Los Angeles, California.

16
17
18 Jessica D. Kinsey
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
 1 SERVICE LIST
William B. Pitt v. Angelina Jolie
2 Case No. 22STCV06081
3 Paul D. Murphy Laura W. Brill
Daniel N. Csillag Daniel Barlava
4 MURPHY ROSEN LLP KENDALL BRILL & KELLY LLP
100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1300 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1725
5 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4013
Telephone: (310) 899-3300 Telephone: (310) 556-2700
6 Email: pmurphy@murphyrosen.com Email: lbrill@kbkfirm.com
Email: dcsillag@murphyrosen.com Email: dbarlava@kbkfirm.com
7 Counsel for Defendant and Cross- Counsel appearing specially to challenge
Complainant Angelina Jolie jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants
8 Roland Venturini and Gary Bradbury

9 Joe Tuffaha Keith R. Hummel

Prashanth Chennakesavan Justin C. Clarke
10 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP Jonathan Mooney
300 South Grand Ave., Ste. 1400 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
11 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Worldwide Plaza
Telephone: (213) 612-8900 825 Eighth Avenue
12 Email: joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com New York, NY 10019
Email: Telephone: (212) 474-1000
13 prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com Email: khummel@cravath.com
Counsel for Defendant and Email: jcclarke@cravath.com
14 Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC and Email: jmooney@cravath.com
Defendant Tenute del Mondo B.V. and Counsel for Defendant and
15 specially appearing to challenge jurisdiction Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC and
on behalf of Defendants Yuri Shefler, Alexey Defendant Tenute del Mondo B.V. and
16 Olivnik and SPI Group Holding, Ltd. specially appearing to challenge jurisdiction
on behalf of Defendants Yuri Shefler, Alexey
17 Olivnik and SPI Group Holding, Ltd.
18 Mark Drooks S. Gale Dick
BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, Phoebe King
19 NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & Randall Bryer
RHOW, P.C. COHEN & GRESSER LLP
20 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 800 Third Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561 New York, NY 10022
21 Telephone: 310 201-2100 Telephone: (212) 707-7263
Email: mdrooks@birdmarella.com Email: SGDick@CohenGresser.com
22 Counsel appearing specially to challenge Email: PKing@CohenGresser.com
jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants Email: rbryer@cohengresser.com
23 Marc-Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval Provence, Counsel appearing specially to challenge
and Families Perrin jurisdiction on behalf of Cross-Defendants
24 Marc-Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval Provence,
and Families Perrin
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE