KEITH R.

HUMMEL (admitted pro hac vice)

1 khummel@cravath.com
JUSTIN C. CLARKE (admitted pro hac vice)
2 jcclarke@cravath.com

3 JONATHAN MOONEY (admitted pro hac vice)

jmooney@cravath.com
4 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
825 Eighth Avenue
5 New York, New York 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
6 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

7
JOE H. TUFFAHA (Bar No. 253723)
8 joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com
PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN (Bar No. 284022)
9 prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
10
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1400
11 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
Telephone: (213) 612-8900
12 Facsimile: (213) 612-3773

13 Attorneys for Defendant and

Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC
14
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
16
WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual, and Case No. 22STCV06081
17
MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-
18 limited liability company,
COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX
19 Plaintiffs, PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
ORDER CONTINUING (1) THE MAY
20 vs. 15, 2024 HEARING ON CROSS-
DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER
21 ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES PERRIN,
NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S
22 liability company, YURI SHEFLER, an
MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF
23 individual, ALEXEY OLIYNIK, an PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND (2)
individual, SPI GROUP HOLDING THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL, LLC
24 LIMITED, a Cyprus private limited TO FILE ITS OPPOSITION TO THE
company, and TENUTE DEL MONDO MOTION TO QUASH
25 B.V., a Netherlands private limited
company, [Tuffaha Declaration and [Proposed]
26
Order filed concurrently herewith]
Defendants.
27

28
DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited Judge: Hon. Lia Martin
1 liability company, Dept.: 3
Cross-Complainant, Date: April 17, 2024
2 Time: 8:30 A.M.
vs.
3 Action Filed: February 17, 2022
WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual,
MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California Trial Date: None set.
4
limited liability company, MARC-
5 OLIVIER PERRIN, an individual, SAS
MIRAVAL PROVENCE, a French limited
6 liability company, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, a French limited liability
7
company, ROLAND VENTURINI, an
8 individual, GARY BRADBURY, an
individual, WARREN GRANT, an
9 individual, SAS PETRICHOR, a French
limited liability company; VINS ET
10 DOMAINES PERRIN SC, a French
company; SAS MIRAVAL STUDIOS, a
11
French limited liability company; SASU
12 LE DOMAINE, a French limited liability
company; SAS DISTILLERIES DE LA
13 RIVIERA, a French limited liability
company, and ROES 1-10.
14
Cross-Defendants.
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER

CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 17, 2024, at 8:30 AM, or as soon thereafter as
3 counsel may be heard, in Department 3 of the above-captioned Court, located at 111 North Hill

4 Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC (“Nouvel”) will

5 and hereby does apply ex parte to this Court for an Order continuing (1) the May 15, 2024 hearing

6 on Cross-Defendants Marc-Oliver Perrin, SAS Familles Perrin, and SAS Miraval Provence’s (the

7 “Perrin Cross-Defendants”) motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (2) the deadline

8 for Nouvel to file its opposition to the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ motion to quash.

9 Good cause exists to grant this application because on March 4, 2024, this Court ordered
10 Nouvel to “proceed with jurisdictional discovery under the Hague Convention” against the Perrin-

11 Cross-Defendants. The Court deemed the discovery sought “fundamental and important to the

12 litigation” and held that “Nouvel should be able to obtain what is necessary to oppose the motion

13 to quash or substantially the same evidence under the Hague Convention.” Yet, despite the

14 Court’s ruling, the Perrin Cross-Defendants have refused to stipulate to a continuance of the

15 hearing date on the motion to quash to allow the time needed for execution of a letter of request

16 under the Hague Convention and instead have taken the plainly unreasonable position that the

17 parties should be required to brief and to argue their motion to quash without any jurisdictional

18 discovery at all under the Hague Convention. To conserve the parties’ and the Court’s resources,

19 this Court should order a continuance to allow sufficient time for the execution of a letter of

20 request under the Hague Convention and the production of jurisdictional discovery to Nouvel.

21 This ex parte application is made pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1200, et seq.,
22 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.11, and all other applicable case or statutory law,

23 and is based on this notice of ex parte application, the attached memorandum of points and

24 authorities, the declaration of Joe Tuffaha filed concurrently herewith (“Tuffaha Decl.”), all of the

25 pleadings, files, and records in this proceeding, all other matters of which the Court may take

26 judicial notice, and any argument or evidence that may be presented or considered by the Court

27 prior to its ruling.

1
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1

2 Dated: April 16, 2024 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Keith R. Hummel
3 Justin C. Clarke
Jonathan Mooney
4

5 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP

Joe H. Tuffaha
6 Prashanth Chennakesavan
7
By: /s/ Joe Tuffaha
8
Joe Tuffaha
9
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
10 Nouvel, LLC
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
-2-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 IDENTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

2 Per California Rule of Court 3.1202(a), it is Nouvel’s understanding that Plaintiffs and

3 Cross-Defendants William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo, LLC and Cross-Defendant Warren Grant,

4 are represented by William Savitt, Jonathan M. Moses, Sarah K. Eddy, Adam L. Goodman,

5 Jessica L. Allen, and Remy Grosbard of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street,

6 New York, NY 10019, Tel: (212) 403-1000, Fax: (212) 403-2000, Email: wdsavitt@wlrk.com,

7 jmmoses@wlrk.com, skeddy@wlrk.com, algoodman@wlrk.com, jlallen@wlrk.com,

8 rkgrosbard@wlrk.com; and John V. Berlinski of Bird, Marella, Rhow, Lincenberg, Drooks &

9 Nessim, LLP, 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561, Tel: (310) 201-

10 2100, Fax: (310) 201-2110, Email: jberlinski@birdmarella.com, BTeachout@birdmarella.com,

11 jcherlow@birdmarella.com, fwang@birdmarella.com, skosmacher@birdmarella.com,

12 KMeyer@birdmarella.com, PYates@birdmarella.com, Rattarson@birdmarella.com.

13 It is Nouvel’s understanding that Cross-Defendants Roland Venturini and Gary Bradbury

14 are represented by William Savitt, Jonathan M. Moses, Sarah K. Eddy, Adam L. Goodman,

15 Jessica L. Allen, and Remy Grosbard of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street,

16 New York, NY 10019, Tel: (212) 403-1000, Fax: (212) 403-2000, Email: wdsavitt@wlrk.com,

17 jmmoses@wlrk.com, skeddy@wlrk.com, algoodman@wlrk.com, jlallen@wlrk.com,

18 rkgrosbard@wlrk.com; and Laura Brill and Katelyn Kuwata of Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP, 10100

19 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1725, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Tel: (310) 556-2700, Fax: (310) 556-

20 2705, Email: lbrill@kbkfirm.com, kkuwata@kbkfirm.com.

21 It is Nouvel’s understanding that Cross-Defendants Marc-Olivier Perrin, SAS Miraval

22 Provence, SAS Familles Perrin, SAS Petrichor, Vins Et Domaines Perrin SC, SASU Le Domaine,

23 and SAS Distilleries de la Riviera are represented by Mark T. Drooks from Bird, Marella, Rhow,

24 Lincenberg, Drooks & Nessim, LLP, 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA

25 90067-2561, Tel: (310) 201-2100, Email: mdrooks@birdmarella.com; and S. Gale Dick, Randall

26 W. Bryer, and Phoebe H. King of Cohen & Gresser LLP, 800 Third Avenue, New York, NY

27
1
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 10022, Tel: (212) 957-7600, Email: sgdick@cohengresser.com, rbryer@cohengresser.com,

2 pking@cohengresser.com.

3 It is Nouvel’s understanding that Cross-Defendants SAS Miraval Studios is represented by

4 Mark T. Drooks from Bird, Marella, Rhow, Lincenberg, Drooks & Nessim, LLP, 1875 Century

5 Park East, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561, Tel: (310) 201-2100, Email:

6 mdrooks@birdmarella.com.

7 It is Nouvel’s understanding that Defendant and Cross-Complainant Angelina Jolie is

8 represented by Paul D. Murphy and Daniel N. Csillag of Murphy Rosen LLP, 100 Wilshire Blvd.,

9 Suite 1300, Santa Monica, CA 90401, Tel: (310) 899-3300, Fax: (310) 399-7201, Email:

10 pmurphy@murphyrosen.com, dcsillag@murphyrosen.com.

11 PRIOR APPLICATIONS FOR SIMILAR RELIEF

12 Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1202(b), Nouvel, LLP states that this is its first ex

13 parte application for an order continuing the hearing on the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ motion to

14 quash and Nouvel’s deadline for opposing the motion to quash.

15 NOTICE OF THIS EX PARTE APPLICATION

16 As required by California Rules of Court 3.1203-3.1204, counsel for Nouvel gave notice of

17 this ex parte application by email to all counsel of record for parties that have appeared in this

18 action on April 16, 2024, at 9:17 AM. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 23.)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
-2-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 Dated: April 16, 2024 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Keith R. Hummel
2 Justin C. Clarke
Jonathan Mooney
3

4 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP

Joe H. Tuffaha
5 Prashanth Chennakesavan
6
By: /s/ Joe Tuffaha
7
Joe Tuffaha
8
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
9 Nouvel, LLC
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
-3-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

3 Defendant and Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC (“Nouvel”) applies ex parte to this Court

4 under California Rule of Court 3.1200 and California Code of Civil Procedure Section 418.11 for

5 an order continuing the May 15, 2024 hearing on Cross-Defendants Marc-Oliver Perrin, SAS

6 Familles Perrin, and SAS Miraval Provence’s (the “Perrin Cross-Defendants”) motion to quash for

7 lack of personal jurisdiction, filed on September 20, 2023. Nouvel served jurisdictional discovery

8 requests on September 28, 2023. The Perrin Cross-Defendants objected to producing any

9 discovery in response to Nouvel’s requests on the basis of the French Blocking Statute and argued

10 to the Court that that Nouvel could obtain timely discovery under the Hague Convention. On

11 March 4, 2024, the Court considered the parties’ arguments and ordered that “Nouvel should

12 proceed with jurisdictional discovery under the Hague Convention.” (Order at 11, Ex. 4 to the

13 Tuffaha Decl.)

14 Following the Court’s ruling, Nouvel drafted and filed a motion for the issuance of a letter

15 of request under the Hague Convention, which the Perrin Cross-Defendants do not oppose. The

16 French Republic advises that it takes between two to six months for the French judiciary to

17 execute a letter of request under the Hague Convention. (Tuffaha Decl. Ex. 6.) Nevertheless, the

18 Perrin Cross-Defendants, contradicting their arguments to the Court, insisted that their motion to

19 quash be fully briefed, argued, and heard by the Court by May 15, 2024—in the absence of

20 Nouvel receiving any jurisdictional discovery at all under the Hague Convention. Because

21 briefing, arguing, and deciding the motion to quash in the absence of jurisdictional discovery that

22 this Court already held is “fundamental and important to the litigation” (Order at 5) would impose

23 an undue burden on the parties and the Court and runs contrary to this Court’s holding that

24 “Nouvel should be able to obtain what is necessary to oppose the motion to quash or substantially

25 the same evidence under the Hague Convention” (Order at 8 (emphasis added)), this Court should

26 order that the hearing and briefing schedule on the motion to quash be continued.

27
1
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 II. BACKGROUND

2 Nouvel filed its First Amended Cross-Complaint in this action on August 9, 2023.

3 (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 3.) The Perrin Cross-Defendants moved to quash for lack of personal

4 jurisdiction on September 20, 2023. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. 1 to the Tuffaha Decl.) Nouvel

5 served them with jurisdictional Requests for Production on September 28, 2023. (Tuffaha Decl.

6 ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. 2 to the Tuffaha Decl.) The Perrin Cross-Defendants served responses and objections,

7 objecting on the basis that, among other things, French Law No. 68-678 of July 26, 1968 (the

8 “French Blocking Statute”) prohibits them from providing discovery except through the Hague

9 Evidence Convention. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 6.) During meet-and-confers, the parties agreed on the

10 scope of discovery for many requests, but reached an impasse on the objection based on the

11 French Blocking Statue and on the scope of certain RFPs. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 6.)

12 On January 22, 2024, Nouvel moved to compel complete discovery responses regarding

13 jurisdiction from the Perrin Cross-Defendants. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 7.) In their opposition to the

14 motion, the Perrin Cross-Defendants argued that the jurisdictional discovery as to them should

15 proceed through the procedures set forth in the Hague Convention. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 3 to

16 the Tuffaha Decl.) In doing so, the Perrin Cross-Defendants represented to the Court that the

17 Hague Convention provides an “alternative means of securing” jurisdictional discovery and that

18 Nouvel could “obtain timely and appropriately tailored jurisdictional discovery through the Hague

19 Convention.” (Opp. at 6.) The Perrin Cross-Defendants emphasized that the parties’ dispute

20 regarding how to proceed was “over the proper procedure for jurisdictional discovery” (id. at 2)

21 and provided assurance that the Hague Convention provides “amply suitable procedures” (id. at 9)

22 for conducting the at-issue discovery which Nouvel “should be required to at least try” (id.). The

23 Perrin Cross-Defendants affirmatively stated that they “assert[] without equivocation that [they]

24 will comply with Hague procedures.” (Id.)

25 On March 4, 2024, the court issued its ruling on Nouvel’s motion to compel, directing that

26 “Nouvel should proceed with jurisdictional discovery under the Hague Convention.” (Tuffaha

27 Decl. ¶¶ 10-11; Ex. 4 to the Tuffaha Decl.) In its Ruling, the Court explicitly stated that “the
-2-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 information requested [by Nouvel] is fundamental and important to the litigation.” (Order at 5.)

2 The Court further held that “Nouvel should be able to obtain what is necessary to oppose the

3 motion to quash or substantially the same evidence under the Hague Convention.” (Order at 8.)

4 Subsequent to the Court’s ruling, counsel for Nouvel reached out to counsel for the Perrin

5 Cross-Defendants to work cooperatively in preparing a draft letter of request for international

6 judicial assistance to obtain jurisdictional discovery pursuant to the Hague Convention. (Tuffaha

7 Decl. ¶ 12). Given the time that will be required for issuance of the letter of request, its execution

8 by French authorities, the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ production of documents, and Nouvel’s

9 review of those documents, Nouvel asked the Perrin Cross-Defendants if they would stipulate to

10 continue the motion to quash hearing, currently scheduled for May 15, 2024, until after Nouvel

11 receives jurisdictional discovery from the Perrin Cross-Defendants. (Id. ¶ 13.) Without a

12 continuance, Nouvel’s opposition to the motion to quash would be due and the hearing on the

13 motion to quash would be held prior to the production of any jurisdictional discovery from the

14 Perrin Cross-Defendants. (Id.) But the Perrin Cross-Defendants refused to stipulate to a

15 continuance, taking the position that Nouvel should be required to brief and argue their motion to

16 quash without obtaining any discovery at all under the Hague Convention. (Id. ¶ 14; Ex. 5 to the

17 Tuffaha Decl.).

18 Despite their prior insistence on proceeding via the Hague Convention and assurances to

19 Nouvel and the Court that the Hague Convention provided an alternative means for Nouvel to

20 obtain timely discovery, and in spite of the Court’s holding concerning the importance of the

21 jurisdictional discovery sought by Nouvel, the Perrin Cross-Defendants have now done an about

22 face after they got their desired ruling from the Court, and now insist that their motion be heard in

23 the absence of such discovery. (Id. ¶¶ 14-18).

24

25

26

27
-3-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 III. ARGUMENT

2 A. Because the Discovery Sought Is Necessary To Brief, Argue, and Decide the

3 Motion To Quash, a Continuance Should Be Granted

4 The Perrin Cross-Defendants argue that Nouvel should be required to brief and argue their

5 motion to quash before obtaining jurisdictional discovery through the mechanism on which they

6 themselves insisted. That position is plainly unreasonable and contrary to the law. A party

7 opposing a motion to quash for lack of jurisdiction is entitled as a matter of right to take

8 jurisdictional discovery to develop the facts necessary to sustain its burden. See In re Auto.

9 Antitrust Cases I and II, 135 Cal. App. 4th 100, 127 (2005) (“A plaintiff attempting to assert

10 jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is entitled to an opportunity to conduct discovery of the

11 jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain its burden of proof.”); 1880 Corp. v. Superior Court, 57

12 Cal. 2d 840, 843 (1962); see also Mihlon v. Superior Court, 169 Cal. App. 3d 703, 711 (1985)

13 (holding plaintiff has the right to conduct discovery with regard to a jurisdiction issue before a

14 court rules on a motion to quash); see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure

15 Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) Ch. 3-B ¶ 3:380 (“In order to meet its burden of proof,

16 plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery with regard to the issue of jurisdiction before the hearing

17 on the motion to quash; e.g., to establish the nature and extent of the defendant’s ‘contacts’ in

18 California. (The hearing date is often continued to facilitate such discovery).”). Continuing the

19 hearing on a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction to allow the

20 opponent to conduct discovery on the jurisdictional issues is within the sound discretion of the

21 trial court. See HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 1173 (2009);

22 Goehring v. Superior Court, 62 Cal. App. 4th 894, 911 (1998).

23 Here, Nouvel seeks discovery concerning the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ contacts with

24 California that relate and give rise to Nouvel’s claims, including: (1) documents concerning the

25 Perrin Cross-Defendants’ actions aimed at California to exclude Nouvel from the governance of

26 its sole investment, which they exploited to plunder the assets of that investment; (2) documents

27 concerning the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ contracts with parties in California that relate to
-4-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 Nouvel’s claims against them; and (3) documents concerning the Perrin Cross-Defendants’

2 successful effort aimed at California to assume control of the key revenue-generating asset within

3 Nouvel’s sole investment. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 5.)

4 This Court has already held that the discovery sought by Nouvel is relevant to assessing

5 whether the Perrin Cross-Defendants are subject to this Court’s jurisdiction:

6 Nouvel is seeking jurisdictional discovery to establish the threshold issue of the

Court’s personal jurisdiction over the Perrin Cross-Defendants. For that reason alone,
7 the information requested is fundamental and important to the litigation.’
8 (Order at 5.) Under these circumstances, a continuance is warranted. Mihlon, 169 Cal. App. 3d

9 at 711.

10 B. The Perrin Cross-Defendants Represented, and the Court Held, That Nouvel
11 Should Obtain Discovery in Advance of Opposing the Motion To Quash
12 During meet and confers, counsel for the Perrin Cross-Defendants stated to counsel for
13 Nouvel that in the event the Court ordered discovery to proceed through the Hague Convention,

14 the Perrin Cross-Defendants would work collaboratively with Nouvel on a schedule that would

15 permit Nouvel to obtain the discovery in advance of a hearing on the motion to quash. (Tuffaha

16 Decl. ¶ 6.) That position is reflected in the Perrin-Cross Defendants’ representations to this Court

17 in their opposition to Nouvel’s motion to compel, in which they argued that Nouvel could “obtain

18 timely and appropriately tailored jurisdictional discovery through the Hague Convention.” (Opp.

19 at 6.) Relying on the Perrin Cross-Defendants’ representations, this Court held that “Nouvel

20 should be able to obtain what is necessary to oppose the motion to quash or substantially the

21 same evidence under the Hague Convention”. (Order at 8 (emphasis added).)

22 C. The Perrin Cross-Defendants’ Arguments Are Meritless

23 During a meet and confer with counsel for Nouvel, counsel for the Perrin Cross-
24 Defendants offered three reasons why they had changed their position and would insist that the

25 parties brief and argue, and the Court hear, their motion to quash in the absence of jurisdictional

26 discovery. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 15.) First, they argued that “the ground has shifted” because the

27
-5-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 Court granted motions to quash filed by Defendants SPI Group Holding Limited and Yuri Shefler.

2 (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 16.) But those motions were granted only after SPI Group Holding Limited,

3 Shefler, and the other foreign defendants produced nearly two thousand documents in

4 jurisdictional discovery. (March 13, 2024 Hr’g Tr. at 16 (“SPI Group Holding Limited and the

5 other foreign defendants produced 1691 documents in jurisdictional discovery…”).) In contrast,

6 the Perrin Cross-Defendants have not produced a single document to Nouvel in jurisdictional

7 discovery. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 16.)

8 Second, the Perrin Cross-Defendants argue they should not be required to produce

9 jurisdictional discovery in advance of a hearing on their motion to quash because Nouvel did not

10 share a draft letter of request under the Hague Convention and motion for the issuance thereof

11 until the third week after the Court ruled on its motion to compel. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 17.) But

12 counsel for Nouvel argued five hearings on dispositive motions in this action in the intervening

13 period and acted as diligently as possible under the circumstances. That Nouvel took a few weeks

14 to draft a letter of request should not excuse the Perrin Cross-Defendants from complying with

15 their obligation to produce jurisdictional discovery. Third, the Perrin Cross-Defendants argue that

16 even if Nouvel obtains the discovery sought, it can never satisfy its burden to show that this Court

17 may exercise jurisdiction over them, especially in light of the allegations in the First Amended

18 Cross-Complaint. (Tuffaha Decl. ¶ 18.) Of course, that circular argument assumes the contents of

19 the jurisdictional discovery that the Perrin Cross-Defendants seek to withhold from Nouvel and

20 from the Court. And it also ignores that jurisdiction is established not on the basis of the factual

21 allegations in a complaint, but on evidence, including evidence produced in jurisdictional

22 discovery. In re Auto. Antitrust Cases I & II, 135 Cal. App. 4th at 110 (“The plaintiff must

23 provide affidavits and other authenticated documents in order to demonstrate competent evidence

24 of jurisdictional facts.”). The Perrin Cross-Defendants’ efforts to evade their discovery

25 obligations should be rejected, and the Court should grant the continuance.

26

27
-6-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 IV. CONCLUSION

2 For the reasons set forth above, and in the accompanying papers, Nouvel, LLC respectfully

3 requests that this Court grant its application for an order continuing the hearing on the Perrin

4 Cross-Defendants’ motion to quash and the remaining briefing schedule for the motion until the

5 Perrin Cross-Defendants produce the jurisdictional discovery that Nouvel has been seeking for the

6 past seven months, and that the Perrin Cross-Defendants argued to the Court could be timely and

7 effectively obtained via the Hague Convention.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
-7-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH
 1 Dated: April 16, 2024

2 Respectfully submitted,

3 By: /s/ Joe Tuffaha

4 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
KEITH R. HUMMEL (admitted pro hac vice)
5
(N.Y. Bar No. 2430668)
6 JUSTIN C. CLARKE (admitted pro hac
vice) (N.Y. Bar No. 5076096)
7 JONATHAN MOONEY (admitted pro hac vice)
(N.Y. Bar No. 5648191)
8 Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
9
New York, NY 10019
10 Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
11
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
12 JOE TUFFAHA
13 (Bar No. 253723)
joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com
14 PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN
(Bar No. 284022)
15 prashanth.chennakesavan@ltlattorneys.com
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1400
16 Los Angeles, CA 90071
17 Telephone: (213) 612-8900
Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
18
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-
19 Complainant Nouvel, LLC
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
-8-
28 DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
CONTINUING (1) THE HEARING ON CROSS-DEFENDANTS MARC-OLIVER PERRIN, SAS FAMILLES
PERRIN, AND SAS MIRAVAL PROVENCE’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND (2) THE DEADLINE FOR NOUVEL TO OPPOSE THE MOTION TO QUASH