LeBrun v. CBS Studios Inc.
68 Cal.App.5th 199
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (two actors and a jewelry‑store owner) are Louisiana residents who participated in a "guerilla‑style" filmed armed‑robbery scene for NCIS: New Orleans in Chalmette, Louisiana; no permits or local notice were given.
- A bystander called 911; SWAT entered, handcuffed and arrested the actors; one actor was jailed; plaintiffs allege physical, emotional, and economic harm.
- CBS personnel in Los Angeles communicated with local authorities after the incident, edited and aired the footage from Los Angeles, and collected revenue from the episode.
- Plaintiffs sued in California for fraud (fraudulent omission re: guerilla filming, and alleged ratification by CBS in LA) and unjust enrichment; complaint filed in May 2020.
- Trial court sustained CBS’s demurrer without leave to amend: fraud claims held time‑barred under CCP §361 because causes of action arose in Louisiana; unjust enrichment rejected on the facts; leave to amend denied.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the torts arose in Louisiana and unjust enrichment was not available under these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP §361 bars the fraud claim (where did the cause of action "arise"?) | Ratification by CBS in California (post‑incident calls, editing, airing, profits) created a separate tort that arose in California, so CA statute of limitations applies | The underlying fraudulent acts, injuries, and accrual occurred in Louisiana; any California ratification merely makes CBS liable for the Louisiana tort — it does not create a new tort arising in CA | Held: Claims arose in Louisiana; §361 applies; fraud claim is time‑barred under Louisiana one‑year statute |
| Whether unjust enrichment is a standalone cause of action here | Unjust enrichment is an equitable claim against CBS for profiting from wrongful conduct and can be pleaded independently | The alleged benefit CBS received (acting and use of the store) was paid for; plaintiffs seek disgorgement tied to the barred fraud claim, not an independent quasi‑contractual benefit | Held: Unjust enrichment not available on these facts; demurrer sustained |
| Whether plaintiffs should have been granted leave to amend | Plaintiffs said they could add more specific post‑incident conduct allegations (e.g., blackballing) | CBS argued plaintiffs already had opportunity and could not cure the statute‑bar or state a valid unjust enrichment claim | Held: Denial of leave affirmed — plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable possibility amendment would cure defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (standard of review for demurrer)
- StreetScenes v. ITC Entertainment Group, Inc., 103 Cal.App.4th 233 (ratification can create liability for an agent’s wrongful act)
- PMC, Inc. v. Kadisha, 78 Cal.App.4th 1368 (officers can incur personal tort liability based on their own tortious conduct; decision distinguished from pure ratification theory)
- City of Brentwood v. Department of Finance, 54 Cal.App.5th 418 (definition and agency nature of ratification)
- American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd., 225 Cal.App.4th 1451 (discussing disgorgement/unjust enrichment as remedies tied to underlying wrongful conduct)
- Hernandez v. Lopez, 180 Cal.App.4th 932 (unjust enrichment as equitable remedy in context of pleaded claims)
- Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co., 70 Cal.2d 627 (plaintiff’s burden to show how amendment would cure defects)