Attorneys For Defendant and Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC

1 KEITH R.
HUMMEL (admitted pro hac vice)

[email protected]
2 JUSTIN C. CLARKE (admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
3
JONATHAN MOONEY (admitted pro hac vice)
4 [email protected]
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)

[email protected]
9 PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN (Bar No. 284022)
[email protected]
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
14 and 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
18 MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California
limited liability company, CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL,
19 LLC’S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-
Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT
20
AND MONDO BONGO, LLC’S
21 vs. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO
22 ANGELINA JOLIE, an individual, and NOUVEL, LLC’S FIRST AMENDED
NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited CROSS-COMPLAINT
23 liability company, YURI SHEFLER, an
individual, ALEXEY OLIYNIK, an Filed concurrently with Opposition to
24 individual, SPI GROUP HOLDING
Demurrer, Request for Judicial Notice,
25 LIMITED, a Cyprus private limited Declaration of Prashanth Chennakesavan,
company, and TENUTE DEL MONDO and Declaration of Jean-Claude Wiwinius
26 B.V., a Netherlands private limited
company,
27
28
CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOUVEL, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANTS WILLIAM B. PITT AND
MONDO BONGO, LLC’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO NOUVEL,
LLC’S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 Defendants.
Judge: Hon. Lia Martin
2 NOUVEL, LLC, a California limited
Dept.: 16
liability company,
Date: January 19, 2024
3 Cross-Complainant, Time: 9 a.m.
4 vs.
Reservation No.: 824939118437
5 WILLIAM B. PITT, an individual,
MONDO BONGO, LLC, a California Action Filed: February 17, 2022
6 limited liability company, MARC- Trial Date: None set.
OLIVIER PERRIN, an individual, SAS
7 MIRAVAL PROVENCE, a French limited
liability company, SAS FAMILLES
8
PERRIN, a French limited liability
9 company, ROLAND VENTURINI, an
individual, GARY BRADBURY, an
10 individual, WARREN GRANT, an
individual, SAS PETRICHOR, a French
11 limited liability company, VINS ET
12 DOMAINES PERRIN SC, a French
company, SAS MIRAVAL STUDIOS, a
13 French limited liability company, SASU
LE DOMAINE, a French limited liability
14 company, SAS DISTILLERIES DE LA
RIVIERA, a French limited liability
15 company, and ROES 1-10.
16
Cross-Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -2-
1 BACKGROUND
2 In connection with their Demurrer to Nouvel, LLC’s First Amended Cross-
3 Complaint, Cross-Defendants William B. Pitt and Mondo Bongo, LLC ask the Court to take
4 judicial notice of two documents that they contend contain “undisputed facts within . . . court
5 filings”. (Cross-Def’s. Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Dem. to Nouvel’s First Am. Cross-
6 Compl. at 10-11.) But these documents themselves make clear that the “facts” that Cross-
7 Defendants ask the Court to judicially notice in their Demurrer are heavily disputed and not
8 appropriate for consideration on a demurrer. The Court should reject Cross-Defendants’ attempt
9 to adduce disputed facts not contained in the pleadings.
10 Cross-Defendants ask the Court to judicially notice the following letters contained
11 in Luxembourg court filings:
12 1) Letter from Mondo Bongo to the District Court of Luxembourg and Nouvel
13 (Docket No. TAL-2022-06390), dated Feb. 17, 2023, with a certified English
14 translation, a purported copy of which is attached as Exhibit L to the Berlinski
15 Declaration; and
16 2) Letter from Nouvel to the District Court of Luxembourg and Mondo Bongo
17 (Docket No. TAL-2022-06390), dated Feb. 21, 2023, with a certified English
18 translation, a purported copy of which is attached as Exhibit M to the Berlinski
19 Declaration;
20 For the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny Cross-Defendants’ improper
21 request for judicial notice of these exhibits. Cross-Defendants’ attempt to rely on these documents
22 is an improper effort to have the Court consider facts contained in documents outside the face of
23 the pleadings under the guise of a request for judicial notice. See Demurrer at 11, 25 n.5.
24 ARGUMENT
25 “Although in ruling on a demurrer courts may take judicial notice of files in other
26 judicial proceedings . . . this does not mean that they take judicial notice of the truth of factual
27 matters asserted therein.” See Ramsden v. W. Union, 71 Cal. App. 3d 873, 879 (Ct. App. 1977)
28
-3-
1 (internal citations omitted); Beckley v. Reclamation Bd. of State, 205 Cal. App. 2d 734, 741 (Ct.
2 App. 1962) (the court may “take judicial notice of the fact that the reports were made, and of their
3 contents. [The court] do[es] not, however, take judicial notice that everything said therein is
4 true.”). “A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed
5 facts.” Ramsden, 71 Cal. App. 3d at 879.
6 Cross-Defendants are attempting to persuade the Court to take judicial notice of the
7 truth of disputed factual statements outside of the face of the pleadings. Specifically, Cross-
8 Defendants characterize Exhibit L as evidencing that Mondo Bongo “agreed to Nouvel’s proposal
9 for a two-member board at Quimicum”. (Cross-Def’s. Dem. at 25 n.5.) But Exhibit M squarely
10 contradicts this, stating: “Mondo Bongo claims to ‘accept’ the proposed solution, when in reality
11 it is proposing a different solution. It is an intellectual con job.” (Berlinski Decl., Ex. M at 1, 3.)
12 And it later adds that Mondo Bongo’s proposed solution is “not the one proposed by Nouvel”.
13 (Id.) The contents of these letters demonstrate that the proposition for which Cross-Defendants
14 cite them is a disputed fact that falls outside the face of the First Amended Cross-Complaint, and it
15 is therefore inappropriate for the Court to take judicial notice of the letters in connection with the
16 Demurrer. Ramsden, 71 Cal. App. at 879.
17 CONCLUSION
18 For the foregoing reasons, Cross-Complainant Nouvel respectfully requests that the
19 Court deny Cross-Defendants request for judicial notice in part with respect to Exhibits L and M.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
1 Dated: December 1, 2023 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Keith R. Hummel (admitted pro hac vice)
2 Justin C. Clarke (admitted pro hac vice)
Jonathan Mooney (admitted pro hac vice)
3
4
LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
5 Joe H. Tuffaha
Prashanth Chennakesavan
6
8 By: /s/ Prashanth Chennakesavan

PRASHANTH CHENNAKESAVAN
9 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
NOUVEL, LLC
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -5-

Attorneys For Defendant and Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attorneys For Defendant and Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attorneys For Defendant and Cross-Complainant Nouvel, LLC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 KEITH R.

HUMMEL (admitted pro hac vice)

7 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

8 JOE H. TUFFAHA (Bar No. 253723)

11 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3950

2 In connection with their Demurrer to Nouvel, LLC’s First Amended Cross-

9 to adduce disputed facts not contained in the pleadings.

11 in Luxembourg court filings:

14 translation, a purported copy of which is attached as Exhibit L to the Berlinski

18 translation, a purported copy of which is attached as Exhibit M to the Berlinski

5 facts.” Ramsden, 71 Cal. App. 3d at 879.

16 Demurrer. Ramsden, 71 Cal. App. at 879.

8 By: /s/ Prashanth Chennakesavan

You might also like