Opposition to Lionsgate's Demurrer: Pleading What an Employer Knew

This brief was filed in Mario Rodriguez v. Tyler Perry on 7 October 2026. It opposes Lions Gate Films Inc.'s demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint. The demurrer challenges two of the claims against Lionsgate: negligence and negligent retention. A dated timeline of the case is kept current as the docket moves.

What the court decided on 23 June 2026

Lionsgate demurred to the First Amended Complaint. According to the brief, the court sustained that demurrer on one ground: the complaint pleaded no facts showing that Lionsgate "knew or should have known Perry's alleged propensity." On the negligence claim, the court assumed a special relationship between Lionsgate and Perry. It limited the duty because the complaint did not show that knowledge, and because "the alleged conduct occurred off set." The court granted leave to amend, and Mr. Rodriguez filed the Second Amended Complaint.

What the Second Amended Complaint alleges Lionsgate knew

The amended complaint pleads an event. It alleges that in 2013, while Lionsgate was "deciding whether to continue and renew its lucrative relationship with Perry," it carried out a renewal review that "included an audit of Perry's conduct." It alleges that the review was triggered by Perry personally auditioning first-time actors for minor roles in Lionsgate films, castings "normally done by a casting director, or an agency, not someone at Perry's level."

The complaint alleges that the audit revealed Perry's method: "to use the promise of roles in Lionsgate films to lure aspiring actors off set, to his private residence, where he sexually assaulted them." It alleges that Lionsgate then ended the master agreement on paper, warned no one, and kept working with Perry picture by picture, with the same casting authority and morality clauses. These are allegations in a complaint. No court has found them true.

Lionsgate's demurrer

The brief describes Lionsgate's arguments. Lionsgate says the knowledge allegations are boilerplate because the complaint does not name a supervisor who knew. It says an assault at Perry's home cannot be foreseeable. In the demurrer, partly in a footnote, it says that its contract with Perry "expired in February 2014" and that the audit "is invented."

The brief answers that a demurrer tests only the complaint. The evidence comes later. It quotes the California Supreme Court in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311: the court "treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded." It also points out that no contract is before the court and that Lionsgate requested judicial notice of nothing.

Does a plaintiff have to name the employee who knew?

The brief says no, and relies on C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861. In that sexual-abuse case, decided on demurrer, the Supreme Court said its precedent did not require a plaintiff to plead, "before undertaking discovery, the identity" of the employee whose negligence supports the claim. The court doubted that "such an impracticable rule" fit the legislative intent.

The brief adds a case Lionsgate itself cited. Uecker v. Zentil (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 789 states that knowledge of a corporate officer acting within the scope of his duties "is imputed to the corporation." In the brief's words, "The names are Lionsgate's to produce."

Why the brief says Perry's home was a workplace

The June ruling turned partly on the fact that the alleged assaults happened off set. The brief argues that negligent retention covers harm where "the contact between the plaintiff and the employee was generated by the employment relationship," citing Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1333. The amended complaint alleges that Perry's Los Angeles home was where he made casting decisions and wrote scripts for Lionsgate, and where he gathered the Boo! A Madea Halloween cast to rehearse lines.

The brief also states plainly that no assault happened on the Atlanta set. Its theory is that Perry did Lionsgate's casting and rehearsal work at his residence, that Lionsgate knew what happened to aspiring actors who came there, and that Lionsgate kept him in that position anyway.

What Lionsgate has said under oath about Request No. 4

Jonathan J. Delshad's declaration, filed with the brief, sets out the history of Request for Production No. 4. That request, served on 7 April 2026, asks for documents about any decision by Lionsgate to enter into, renew, extend or terminate its relationship with Perry from 1 January 2010 onward.

Lionsgate served verified second amended responses on 15 July 2026 and verified third amended responses on 29 September 2026. Both times, its answer to Request No. 4, after its objections, was: "Lionsgate is willing to meet and confer to limit the scope of this Request." The declaration states that, as of 7 October 2026, Lionsgate had not served a privilege log for these requests.

According to the brief, on 27 July 2026 the court granted Mr. Rodriguez's motion to compel Lionsgate's responses to this set of requests and ordered responses without objection. Lionsgate then obtained a temporary stay from the Court of Appeal.

The brief ties this back to Lionsgate's footnote: "A party that will not answer, under oath, the request directed at its 2013 decision is in no position to resolve the question by footnote."

What happens next

The demurrer is set for hearing on 20 October 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 407, before the Honorable Brock T. Hammond. The brief asks the court to overrule the demurrer. In the alternative, it asks for leave to amend. This page will be updated when the court rules.

Frequently asked questions

What is a demurrer?

A demurrer is a request to dismiss a complaint because, even if every fact in it is true, those facts do not state a legal claim. The court does not weigh evidence. As the brief quotes from Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, "It is not the ordinary function of a demurrer to test the truth of the plaintiff's allegations or the accuracy with which he describes the defendant's conduct."

What is negligent retention?

It is a claim that an employer kept an employee after it knew, or should have known, that the employee posed a particular risk, and that risk then caused harm. The brief quotes the test from Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133: the employer "knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes."

What does "on information and belief" mean in a complaint?

It means the plaintiff alleges a fact he does not know personally but has reason to believe. The brief quotes Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531: a plaintiff "may allege on information and belief any matters that are not within his personal knowledge, if he has information leading him to believe that the allegations are true."

Can a demurrer decide whether a disputed fact is true?

No, according to the authorities the brief cites. It quotes Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97: "[a] demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts."

What happens if the court sustains the demurrer?

The court can sustain a demurrer with or without leave to amend. The brief cites Blank v. Kirwan for the rule that denying leave is an abuse of discretion where "there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment." The brief also notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(e)(1) permits three amendments in response to a demurrer, and says a third amended complaint would be the third.

When is the hearing on Lionsgate's demurrer?

On 20 October 2026 at 8:30 a.m., in Department 407 of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The filed documents

The filed documents are reproduced below. The declaration's exhibits are excerpts, as filed.

• Plaintiff Mario Rodriguez's opposition to Lionsgate's demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (PDF, 20 pages)
• Declaration of Jonathan J. Delshad in support of the opposition, with three exhibits (PDF, 28 pages)

Note

Public-record court filing, published to show the firm’s work. This case is in active litigation and the firm does not comment on it beyond the filed papers. General information, not legal advice. Attorney advertising.