1 KEITH R.

HUMMEL (admitted pro hac vice)

khummel@cravath.com
2 JUSTIN C. CLARKE (admitted pro hac vice)
jcclarke@cravath.com
3
JONATHAN MOONEY (admitted pro hac vice)
4 jmooney@cravath.com
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
5 825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
6 Telephone: (212) 474-1000

7 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

8 JOE H. TUFFAHA (Bar No. 253723)

joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com
9 PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN (Bar No. 284022)
prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com
10 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP

11 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3950

Los Angeles, CA 90071
12 Telephone: (213) 612-8900
Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
13
Attorneys for Defendant and
14 Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC

15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
17 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual, and Case No. 22STCV06081
MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
18 limited liability company, CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL,
LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
19 NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
Plaintiffs,
20 OPPOSITION TO CROSS-
vs. DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT
21 AND MONDO BONGO, LLC’S
ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and DEMURRER TO NOUVEL, LLC’S
22 NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited FIRST AMENDED CROSS-
liability company, YURI SHEFLER, an COMPLAINT
23 individual, ALEXEY OLIYNIK, an
individual, SPI GROUP HOLDING Filed concurrently with Opposition to
24
LIMITED, a Cyprus private limited Demurrer, Opposition to Request for
25 company, and TENUTE DEL MONDO Judicial Notice, Declaration of Prashanth
B.V., a Netherlands private limited Chennakesavan, and Declaration of Jean-
26 company, Claude Wiwinius

27 Judge: Hon. Lia Martin

Defendants.
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO LLC’S DEMURRER TO
NOUVEL LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
 1 NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited Dept.: 16
liability company, Date: January 19, 2024
2 Time: 9 a.m.
Cross-Complainant,
3 vs. Reservation No.: 824939118437
4 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual,
MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California Action Filed: February 17, 2022
5 limited liability company, MARC- Trial Date: None set.
OLIVIER PERRIN, an individual, SAS
6
MIRAVAL PROVENCE, a French limited
7 liability company, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, a French limited liability
8 company, ROLAND VENTURINI, an
individual, GARY BRADBURY, an
9 individual, WARREN GRANT, an
10 individual, SAS PETRICHOR, a French
limited liability company, VINS ET
11 DOMAINES PERRIN SC, a French
company, SAS MIRAVAL STUDIOS, a
12 French limited liability company, SASU
LE DOMAINE, a French limited liability
13 company, SAS DISTILLERIES DE LA
14 RIVIERA, a French limited liability
company, and ROES 1-10.
15
Cross-Defendants.
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28 -2-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO LLC’S DEMURRER TO
NOUVEL LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
 1 TO THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT:

2 Defendant and Cross-Complainant, Nouvel, LLC (“Nouvel”), pursuant to Evidence Code

3 Sections 310, 452 and 453, requests that the court take judicial notice of the following documents:

4 1. Alain Steichen, Précis de droit des sociétés (Saint-Paul, 2018). A true and correct copy of

5 excerpts of a book by Alain Steichen titled Précis de droit des sociétés is attached as

6 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of Nouvel’s

7 Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

8 2. Article 1134 of the Luxembourg Civil Code. A true and correct copy of Article 1134 of

9 the Luxembourg Civil Code and its certified English translation are attached as Exhibit 2

10 to the Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the

11 Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

12 3. Olivier Poelman, Droit des Obligations au Luxembourg (Larcier, 2012). A true and

13 correct copy of excerpts of a book by Olivier Poelmans titled Droit des Obligations au

14 Luxembourg (Larcier, 2012) and a certified English translation of those excerpts are

15 attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of

16 Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-

17 Complaint.

18 4. Articles of Association of Quimicum S.á.r.l (“The Quimicum Articles”). A true and

19 correct copy of the Quimicum Articles are attached as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of

20 Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’

21 Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

22 5. Cour d’appel, Pasicrisie 29, 241 (May 5, 1993). A true and correct copy of a judgment of

23 the Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, captioned Cour d’appel, Pasicrisie (May 5, 1993),

24 and its certified English translation are attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of

25 Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’

26 Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

27

28
-3-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO LLC’S DEMURRER TO
NOUVEL LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
 1 6. Cour d’appel, No. CAL-2021-00076 (Dec. 21, 2022). A true and correct copy of a

2 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, captioned Cour d’appel, No. CAL-2021-

3 00076 (Dec. 21, 2022), and its certified English translation are attached as Exhibit 6 to the

4 Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-

5 Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

6 7. Cour d’appel, No. 2019-00991 (March 23, 2021). A true and correct copy of a judgment

7 of the Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, captioned Cour d’appel, No. 2019-00991

8 (March 23, 2021), is attached as Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan

9 in Support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the First

10 Amended Cross-Complaint.

11 8. Jean-Pierre Winandy, Manuel de droit des sociétés (2019). A true and correct copy of

12 excerpts of a book by Jean-Pierre Winandy titled Manuel de droit des sociétés and a

13 certified English translation of those excepts are attached as Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of

14 Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’

15 Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

16 9. Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, No. PAS. L. 16. 558 (June 12, 1952). A true

17 and correct copy of a Luxembourg District Court Case, captioned Tribunal

18 d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, No. PAS. L. 16. 558 (June 12, 1952), is attached as

19 Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in support of Nouvel’s

20 Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

21 10. Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg: Civil et commercial, No. 143530 (Feb. 1,

22 2013). A true and correct copy of a Luxembourg District Court Case captioned Tribunal

23 d’arrondissement de Luxembourg: Civil et commercial, No. 143530 (Feb. 1, 2013), is

24 attached as Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of

25 Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-

26 Complaint.
27

28 -4-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO LLC’S DEMURRER TO
NOUVEL LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
 1 11. Cour d’appel, No. 31494 (Jan. 7, 2009). A true and correct copy of a judgment of the

2 Luxembourg Court of Appeal, captioned Cour d’appel, No. 31494 (Jan. 7, 2009), is

3 attached as Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of

4 Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-

5 Complaint.

6 12. Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, No. 235/89 (June 9, 1989). A true and correct

7 copy of a Luxembourg District Court case, captioned Tribunal d’arrondissement de

8 Luxembourg, No. 235/89 (June 9, 1989), and its certified English translation are attached

9 as Exhibit 12 to the Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in support of Nouvel’s

10 Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

11 13. Letter from M. Mouget and K. Stoffel of Ocorian Services to T. Bird and W. Grant

12 A true and correct copy of a letter from M. Mouget and K. Stoffel of Ocorian Services to

13 T. Bird and W. Grant and its English translation is attached as Exhibit 13 to the

14 Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-

15 Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

16 14. Letter to Quimicum’s Shareholders regarding Quimicum’s Annual General Meeting. A

17 true and correct copy of a letter to Quimicum’s Shareholders regarding Quimicum’s

18 Annual General Meeting is attached as Exhibit 14 to the Declaration of Prashanth

19 Chennakesavan in Support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to

20 the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

21 15. Tribunal civil de Luxembourg, Pas. 3 at 537 (August 10, 1891). A true and correct copy of

22 a Luxembourg civil court case, captioned Tribunal civil de Luxembourg, Pas. 3 at 537

23 (August 10, 1891), and its certified English translation are attached as Exhibit 15 to the

24 Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in Support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-

25 Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

26 16. The Declaration of Jean-Claude Wiwinius filed in support of Nouvel’s Opposition to the
27 Cross-Defendants William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo, LLC’s Demurrer. A true and correct

28 -5-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO LLC’S DEMURRER TO
NOUVEL LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
 1 copy is attached as Exhibit 16 to the Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan in support of

2 Nouvel’s Opposition to the Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-

3 Complaint.

4 Evidence Code section 453 provides that “[t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any

5 matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) [g]ives each adverse party sufficient

6 notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare

7 to meet the request; and (b) [f]urnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take

8 judicial notice of the matter.”

9 For Exhibits 1-3, 5-12 and 15-16, Evidence Code section 452(f) provides that judicial

10 notice may be taken of “[t]he law of . . . foreign nations”. See also Mireskandari v. Gallagher, 59

11 Cal. App. 5th 346, 358 (2020) (“[A] court may consider matters subject to judicial notice when

12 ruling on a demurrer, and foreign law is subject to [permissive] judicial notice[.]”). Evidence

13 Code section 454(a)-(b) provides that in taking judicial notice, “[a]ny source of pertinent

14 information, including the advice of persons learned in the subject matter, may be consulted”, and

15 “[w]here the subject of judicial notice is the law of an organization of nations, a foreign nation, or

16 a public entity in a foreign nation and the court resorts to the advice of persons learned in the

17 subject matter, such advice, if not received in open court, shall be in writing”. See also

18 Mireskandari, 59 Cal. App. 5th at 358. The Court may thus take judicial notice of sources of

19 Luxembourg law (Exs. 1-3, 5-12, 15) and the Declaration of Jean-Claude Wiwinius (Ex. 16), who

20 is learned in the subject matter of Luxembourgish law.

21 For Exhibits 4, 13 and 14, Evidence Code section 452(h) provides that judicial notice may be

22 taken of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of

23 immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy”.

24 Though judicial notice may not be taken of hearsay statements, when a matter falls within an

25 exception to the hearsay rule, the court may properly take judicial notice. See In re Michael G., 19
Cal. App. 4th 1674, 1677–79 (1993). Because Nouvel relies on Exhibit 4 to show the terms of a
26
contract referenced in its First Amended Cross-Complaint and Exhibits 13 and 14 to show that
27

28 -6-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO LLC’S DEMURRER TO
NOUVEL LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
 1 Ocorian made certain statements, rather than the truth of the matters asserted, the court may

2 appropriately take judicial notice of Exhibits 4, 13 and 14.

4 Dated: December 1, 2023 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Keith R. Hummel (admitted pro hac vice)
5 Justin C. Clarke (admitted pro hac vice)
Jonathan Mooney (admitted pro hac vice)
6

7
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
8 Joe H. Tuffaha
Prashanth Chennakesavan
9

10
By: /s/ Prashanth Chennakesavan
11
PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN
12 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
NOUVEL, LLC
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28 -7-
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND MONDO BONGO LLC’S DEMURRER TO
NOUVEL LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT