Preview
JEREMIAH REYNOLDS (SBN 223554)
Electronically FILED by
jreynolds@eisnerlaw.com Superior Court of California,
KATHERINE PIERUCCI (SBN 301051) Count: of Los Angeles
kpierucci@eisnerlaw.com 10/10/2023 5:29
EISNER, LLP David W. Slayton,
Executive Officer/Clerk of Court,
433 North Camden Drive, 4"" Floor By S. Bolden, Deputy Clerk
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Telephone: (310) 855-3200
Facsimile: (310) 855-3201
Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEAMROLLER, LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
11 STEAMROLLER, LLC, an Iowa Limited Case No. 23STCV13254
Liability Company;,
12 The Hon. Armen Tamzarian
Plaintiff,
13 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S
VS. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
14 MOTION TO STRIKE
SLIPKNOT, LLC, a Delaware Limited
15 Liability Company; SLIPKNOT, INC., a
California Corporation; KNOT Date: October 23, 2023
16 PRODUCTIONS, LLC; a Delaware Limited Time: 9:00 AM
Liability Company; COREY TAYLOR, an Dept.: 52
17 individual residing in California; and
MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, an individual Reservation No.: 495052387255
18 residing in California,
Action Filed: June 8, 2023
19 Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EISNER, LLP 2847575 1
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I INTRODUCTION
The Motion to Strike (“Motion”) of Defendants Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot, Inc., Knot
Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and Michael Shawn Crahan (“Defendants’’) seeks relief that is
inappropriate at the demurrer phase and must be denied in its entirety.
First, Defendants ask this Court to apply a heightened evidentiary standard to the First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Steamroller, LLC (“Plaintiff”) that is inappropriate for
the pleading stage. Defendants ask this court to strike the FAC’s prayer for royalties and punitive
damages even though the FAC contains robust allegations in support of each of these prayers for
10 relief. As to royalties, the FAC alleges that Defendants wrongfully profited from display of
11 Plaintiff's belongings at Knotfest and these ill-gotten gains could be properly characterized as
12 “royalties.” As to punitive damages, the FAC alleges that Defendants acted with fraudulent intent
13 and perpetrated a sham return of belongings to Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest, Joey Jordison, to
14 intentionally deceive Jordison into believing that all of his belongings had been returned to him,
15 so that Defendants could wrongfully and secretly withhold numerous other items belongings to
16 Jordison and display them for a profit without Jordison’s interference. Notwithstanding these
17 allegations, Defendants argue in their Motion that the FAC’s allegations are “conclusory” and fall
18 short of the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard for punitive damages. But Defendants are
19 not permitted to simply ignore numerous allegations in the FAC or demand “clear and
20 convincing” evidence at the demurrer phase.
21 Second, Defendants ask this Court to strike certain allegations in the FAC simply because
22 they are deeply unflattering to Defendants, but there is no basis for such relief under California
23 law. Defendants ask this Court to strike allegations regarding Jordison’s neurological disease and
24 heartless firing from Slipknot, both of which immediately preceded and gave rise to the Release
25 Agreement that is at the center of Plaintiff's cause of action for breach against Defendants, as well
26 as relevant to Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages. The allegations in question are therefore
27 directly relevant to the FAC and the Court should not strike them simply because Defendants are
28 embarrassed by their own behavior.
EISNER, LLP 2847575 2
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
For these reasons and as more fully discussed herein, the Court should deny Defendants’
Motion to Strike in its entirety.
Il. THE FAC’S PRAYER FOR ROYALTIES IS WELL-PLED
The Court should not strike the prayer for royalties in the FAC because the prayer is
adequately supported by the allegations in the FAC. A “royalty” is simply a fee paid to a property
owner for use of the property. See Royalty, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also
Royalty, Merriam-Webster.com (2023) (“a share of the product or profit reserved by the grantor . .
.”). The FAC alleges that Defendants wrongfully possess numerous of Jordison’s belongings and
have displayed them at Knotfest for a profit. (See, e.g., FAC § 25.) And the FAC prays for
10 turnover of Jordison’s belongings, money damages for loss of use and opportunity to profit, and
11 restitution for Defendants’ ill-gotten gains resulting from their display of Jordison’s belongings
12 without the permission of Jordison or Plaintiff. (/d. at 10-18.) “Royalty” is thus effectively
13 synonymous with both Plaintiffs prayers for money damages and restitution, and need not be
14 struck from the FAC.
15 lll. THE FAC’S PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS WELL-PLED
16 Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages is supported by the allegations in the FAC. “In
17 order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an
18 entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” C/auson v. Superior Ct. (1998) 67
19 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255. “Pleading in the language of the statute is acceptable provided that
20 sufficient facts are pleaded to support the allegations.” Blegen v. Superior Ct. (1981) 125
21 Cal. App.3d 959, 963.
22 Plaintiff has satisfied this pleading standard by alleging a fraudulent scheme pursuant to
23 which Defendants executed the Release Agreement with the intent not to perform and perpetrated
24 a sham return of items to Jordison to intentionally deceive him into believing that Defendants had
25 complied with their obligations and to conceal their nonperformance so that it would be difficult
26 for Jordison to discover. (FAC {ff 2, 20, 21.) The FAC further alleges that the goal of
27 Defendants’ scheme was to wrongfully and secretly withhold Jordison’s belongings so that they
28 could display them at Knotfest and profit off
of the willingness of Jordison’s grieving fan base to
EISNER, LLP 2847575 3
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
pay a fee to view Jordison’s belongings in person. (See, e.g., id. § 24.) Moreover, the FAC pleads
a pattern of mistreatment perpetrated by Defendants against Jordison, including kicking him out of
Slipknot over email after three decades of devotion and service to the band and its fans and while
Jordison was suffering from a neurological disease (id. {J 20-21), as well as seeking to profit from
Jordison’s passing (id. { 23). Plaintiff has therefore satisfied the pleading burden for punitive
damages by pleading facts to support its allegations that Defendants acted with malice, oppression,
and fraud, toward Jordison.
Defendants baldly argue that the prayer is “supported by nothing more than conclusory
allegations of ‘fraud’ and ‘misrepresentation.’” (OB at 3.) But this is not true. The FAC’s
10 allegations stated above are not conclusory and are supported by underlying facts including
11 allegations regarding Defendants’ sham return and display of Jordison’s belongings at Knotfest for
12 a profit. Defendants seem to suggest that Plaintiff must “prove[] by clear and convincing evidence
13 that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice” (OB at 3), but this evidentiary
14 standard is inapplicable at the pleading stage. Plaintiff's robust pleadings are more than adequate
15 to satisfy the pleading requirements for punitive damages on demurrer.
16 Iv. THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE ALLEGATIONS FROM THE FAC
17 Defendants ask this Court to take the extraordinary step of striking allegations in the FAC
18 simply because Defendants do not like or are embarrassed by them. (OB at 4.) Defendants argue
19 that the following allegations in the FAC are irrelevant and must be struck: (1) Jordison’s medical
20 diagnosis; (2) Jordison’s dismissal from Slipknot; and (3) Defendants’ use of Jordison’s death to
21 market their new album. (OB at 5.) It is no surprise that Defendants are embarrassed by these
22 allegations and would prefer them to be struck from the FAC. Defendants’ behavior toward
23 Jordison, as is set forth in the FAC, has been abhorrent. But Defendants should not be permitted
24 to use this Motion and this Court as some sort of public relations rehabilitation campaign.
25 The allegations of Defendants’ abhorrent behavior set forth above are both directly
26 relevant to the causes of action in the FAC, as well as Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages.
27 The case concerns Defendants’ failure to return Jordison’s belongings pursuant to the Release
28 Agreement, which was executed as a result of Jordison’s termination from Slipknot and the
EISNER, LLP 2847575 4
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
Slipknot Partnership. Jordison’s termination from Slipknot is therefore directly relevant to the
FAC. Jordison’s neurological disease is also relevant to the FAC because the diagnosis
immediately preceded his termination from Slipknot and release from the Slipknot Partnership,
and because his death resulted in Plaintiff filing this lawsuit as successor-in-interest to Jordison’s
estate. Defendants’ use of Plaintiff's tragic death as a marketing ploy is part of Defendants’ larger
scheme to profit from Jordison’s illness and passing. As part of the same scheme, Defendants
have displayed Jordison’s belongings at Knotfest in order to profit off of Jordison’s devoted fans’
desire to see Jordison’s belongings in person and experience nostalgia for the late drummer.
Finally, Defendants’ callous firing of Jordison while Jordison was suffering from a neurological
10 disease and Defendants’ subsequent efforts to wrongfully profit from Jordison’s death are facts
11 relevant to and supportive of Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages on the basis of fraud, malice,
12 and oppression. Defendants’ discomfort with their own behavior is not a valid basis to strike
13 relevant pleadings under California law.
14 Vv. CONCLUSION
15 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’
16 motion in its entirety.
J
17 DATED: October 10, 2023 EISNER LLP
18
19
20 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS
KATHERINE PIERUCCI
21 Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEAMROLLER, LLC
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EISNER, LLP 2847575, 5
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
PROOF OF SERVICE
Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al.
Case No. 23STCV13254
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. Iam
employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 433 N.
Camden Dr., 4th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90210.
On October 10, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STRIKE on the interested parties in this action as follows:
Joe M. Carlone, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants
jearlone@khpslaw.com
Jackson S. Trugman, Esq.
10 jtrugman@khpslaw.com
King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP
11 1900 Avenue of the Stars
Twenty Fifth Floor
12 Los Angeles, CA 90067
13 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused courtesy copies ofthe
document(s) to be sent from e-mail address cbrennand@eisnerlaw.com to the persons at the e-mail
14 addres: isted in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
15
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
16 foregoing is true and correct.
17 Executed on October 10, 2023, at Beverly Hills, California.
18
(Venmi:BrenreL2
19
Cammie R Brennand
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EISNER, LLP 2847575, 6
PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
Preview
JEREMIAH REYNOLDS (SBN 223554) Electronically FILED by jreynolds@eisnerlaw.com Superior Court of California, KATHERINE PIERUCCI (SBN 301051) Count: of Los Angeles kpierucci@eisnerlaw.com 10/10/2023 5:29 EISNER, LLP David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, 433 North Camden Drive, 4"" Floor By S. Bolden, Deputy Clerk Beverly Hills, California 90210 Telephone: (310) 855-3200 Facsimile: (310) 855-3201 Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEAMROLLER, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 STEAMROLLER, LLC, an Iowa Limited Case No. 23STCV13254 Liability Company;, 12 The Hon. Armen Tamzarian Plaintiff, 13 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S VS. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 14 MOTION TO STRIKE SLIPKNOT, LLC, a Delaware Limited 15 Liability Company; SLIPKNOT, INC., a California Corporation; KNOT Date: October 23, 2023 16 PRODUCTIONS, LLC; a Delaware Limited Time: 9:00 AM Liability Company; COREY TAYLOR, an Dept.: 52 17 individual residing in California; and MICHAEL SHAWN CRAHAN, an individual Reservation No.: 495052387255 18 residing in California, Action Filed: June 8, 2023 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EISNER, LLP 2847575 1 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I INTRODUCTION The Motion to Strike (“Motion”) of Defendants Slipknot, LLC, Slipknot, Inc., Knot Productions, LLC, Corey Taylor, and Michael Shawn Crahan (“Defendants’’) seeks relief that is inappropriate at the demurrer phase and must be denied in its entirety. First, Defendants ask this Court to apply a heightened evidentiary standard to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiff Steamroller, LLC (“Plaintiff”) that is inappropriate for the pleading stage. Defendants ask this court to strike the FAC’s prayer for royalties and punitive damages even though the FAC contains robust allegations in support of each of these prayers for 10 relief. As to royalties, the FAC alleges that Defendants wrongfully profited from display of 11 Plaintiff's belongings at Knotfest and these ill-gotten gains could be properly characterized as 12 “royalties.” As to punitive damages, the FAC alleges that Defendants acted with fraudulent intent 13 and perpetrated a sham return of belongings to Plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest, Joey Jordison, to 14 intentionally deceive Jordison into believing that all of his belongings had been returned to him, 15 so that Defendants could wrongfully and secretly withhold numerous other items belongings to 16 Jordison and display them for a profit without Jordison’s interference. Notwithstanding these 17 allegations, Defendants argue in their Motion that the FAC’s allegations are “conclusory” and fall 18 short of the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard for punitive damages. But Defendants are 19 not permitted to simply ignore numerous allegations in the FAC or demand “clear and 20 convincing” evidence at the demurrer phase. 21 Second, Defendants ask this Court to strike certain allegations in the FAC simply because 22 they are deeply unflattering to Defendants, but there is no basis for such relief under California 23 law. Defendants ask this Court to strike allegations regarding Jordison’s neurological disease and 24 heartless firing from Slipknot, both of which immediately preceded and gave rise to the Release 25 Agreement that is at the center of Plaintiff's cause of action for breach against Defendants, as well 26 as relevant to Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages. The allegations in question are therefore 27 directly relevant to the FAC and the Court should not strike them simply because Defendants are 28 embarrassed by their own behavior. EISNER, LLP 2847575 2 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE For these reasons and as more fully discussed herein, the Court should deny Defendants’ Motion to Strike in its entirety. Il. THE FAC’S PRAYER FOR ROYALTIES IS WELL-PLED The Court should not strike the prayer for royalties in the FAC because the prayer is adequately supported by the allegations in the FAC. A “royalty” is simply a fee paid to a property owner for use of the property. See Royalty, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Royalty, Merriam-Webster.com (2023) (“a share of the product or profit reserved by the grantor . . .”). The FAC alleges that Defendants wrongfully possess numerous of Jordison’s belongings and have displayed them at Knotfest for a profit. (See, e.g., FAC § 25.) And the FAC prays for 10 turnover of Jordison’s belongings, money damages for loss of use and opportunity to profit, and 11 restitution for Defendants’ ill-gotten gains resulting from their display of Jordison’s belongings 12 without the permission of Jordison or Plaintiff. (/d. at 10-18.) “Royalty” is thus effectively 13 synonymous with both Plaintiffs prayers for money damages and restitution, and need not be 14 struck from the FAC. 15 lll. THE FAC’S PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS WELL-PLED 16 Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages is supported by the allegations in the FAC. “In 17 order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an 18 entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” C/auson v. Superior Ct. (1998) 67 19 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255. “Pleading in the language of the statute is acceptable provided that 20 sufficient facts are pleaded to support the allegations.” Blegen v. Superior Ct. (1981) 125 21 Cal. App.3d 959, 963. 22 Plaintiff has satisfied this pleading standard by alleging a fraudulent scheme pursuant to 23 which Defendants executed the Release Agreement with the intent not to perform and perpetrated 24 a sham return of items to Jordison to intentionally deceive him into believing that Defendants had 25 complied with their obligations and to conceal their nonperformance so that it would be difficult 26 for Jordison to discover. (FAC {ff 2, 20, 21.) The FAC further alleges that the goal of 27 Defendants’ scheme was to wrongfully and secretly withhold Jordison’s belongings so that they 28 could display them at Knotfest and profit off of the willingness of Jordison’s grieving fan base to EISNER, LLP 2847575 3 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE pay a fee to view Jordison’s belongings in person. (See, e.g., id. § 24.) Moreover, the FAC pleads a pattern of mistreatment perpetrated by Defendants against Jordison, including kicking him out of Slipknot over email after three decades of devotion and service to the band and its fans and while Jordison was suffering from a neurological disease (id. {J 20-21), as well as seeking to profit from Jordison’s passing (id. { 23). Plaintiff has therefore satisfied the pleading burden for punitive damages by pleading facts to support its allegations that Defendants acted with malice, oppression, and fraud, toward Jordison. Defendants baldly argue that the prayer is “supported by nothing more than conclusory allegations of ‘fraud’ and ‘misrepresentation.’” (OB at 3.) But this is not true. The FAC’s 10 allegations stated above are not conclusory and are supported by underlying facts including 11 allegations regarding Defendants’ sham return and display of Jordison’s belongings at Knotfest for 12 a profit. Defendants seem to suggest that Plaintiff must “prove[] by clear and convincing evidence 13 that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice” (OB at 3), but this evidentiary 14 standard is inapplicable at the pleading stage. Plaintiff's robust pleadings are more than adequate 15 to satisfy the pleading requirements for punitive damages on demurrer. 16 Iv. THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE ALLEGATIONS FROM THE FAC 17 Defendants ask this Court to take the extraordinary step of striking allegations in the FAC 18 simply because Defendants do not like or are embarrassed by them. (OB at 4.) Defendants argue 19 that the following allegations in the FAC are irrelevant and must be struck: (1) Jordison’s medical 20 diagnosis; (2) Jordison’s dismissal from Slipknot; and (3) Defendants’ use of Jordison’s death to 21 market their new album. (OB at 5.) It is no surprise that Defendants are embarrassed by these 22 allegations and would prefer them to be struck from the FAC. Defendants’ behavior toward 23 Jordison, as is set forth in the FAC, has been abhorrent. But Defendants should not be permitted 24 to use this Motion and this Court as some sort of public relations rehabilitation campaign. 25 The allegations of Defendants’ abhorrent behavior set forth above are both directly 26 relevant to the causes of action in the FAC, as well as Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages. 27 The case concerns Defendants’ failure to return Jordison’s belongings pursuant to the Release 28 Agreement, which was executed as a result of Jordison’s termination from Slipknot and the EISNER, LLP 2847575 4 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE Slipknot Partnership. Jordison’s termination from Slipknot is therefore directly relevant to the FAC. Jordison’s neurological disease is also relevant to the FAC because the diagnosis immediately preceded his termination from Slipknot and release from the Slipknot Partnership, and because his death resulted in Plaintiff filing this lawsuit as successor-in-interest to Jordison’s estate. Defendants’ use of Plaintiff's tragic death as a marketing ploy is part of Defendants’ larger scheme to profit from Jordison’s illness and passing. As part of the same scheme, Defendants have displayed Jordison’s belongings at Knotfest in order to profit off of Jordison’s devoted fans’ desire to see Jordison’s belongings in person and experience nostalgia for the late drummer. Finally, Defendants’ callous firing of Jordison while Jordison was suffering from a neurological 10 disease and Defendants’ subsequent efforts to wrongfully profit from Jordison’s death are facts 11 relevant to and supportive of Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages on the basis of fraud, malice, 12 and oppression. Defendants’ discomfort with their own behavior is not a valid basis to strike 13 relevant pleadings under California law. 14 Vv. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ 16 motion in its entirety. J 17 DATED: October 10, 2023 EISNER LLP 18 19 20 JEREMIAH REYNOLDS KATHERINE PIERUCCI 21 Attorneys for Plaintiff, STEAMROLLER, LLC 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EISNER, LLP 2847575, 5 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PROOF OF SERVICE Steamroller, LLC vs. Slipknot, LLC, et al. Case No. 23STCV13254 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. Iam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 433 N. Camden Dr., 4th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90210. On October 10, 2023, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE on the interested parties in this action as follows: Joe M. Carlone, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants jearlone@khpslaw.com Jackson S. Trugman, Esq. 10 jtrugman@khpslaw.com King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP 11 1900 Avenue of the Stars Twenty Fifth Floor 12 Los Angeles, CA 90067 13 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused courtesy copies ofthe document(s) to be sent from e-mail address cbrennand@eisnerlaw.com to the persons at the e-mail 14 addres: isted in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 16 foregoing is true and correct. 17 Executed on October 10, 2023, at Beverly Hills, California. 18 (Venmi:BrenreL2 19 Cammie R Brennand 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EISNER, LLP 2847575, 6 PLAINTIFF STEAMROLLER, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE