BAKER, OLSON. LECROY 135 DANIICIJAN 100 West Broadway, Suite 991} G-ielidaie, (IA 91211} woo-alarmArbella Azizian, Of Counsel, SBN 294696 BAKER, OLSON, DANIELIAN azizian@boldlaw.com 100 West Broadway, Suite 990 Glendale, CA 91210 Telephone: (818) 502-5600 Facsimile: (818) 241-2653 Attorney for Plaintiff, Gregg ?Rocky? Brooks ?0 trainees? Los Anweies Sune?or Court JUL 0 6 2018 sherrl R. Caner, :xecuuire By Shaunya Borden, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Plaintiff, V. JOHN C. DEPP, an individual; MIRIAM SEGAL, an individual; BRAD FURMAN, an individual; GOOD FILM PRODUCTIONS US, a New York Corporation; INFINITUM A Californian Corporation; And DOES 1-50 Case No: - Complaint for Damages: 1) Assault and Battery 2) Intentional lnfliction of Emotional Distress 3)Negligence 4) Negligence-Respondeat Superior 5) Negligent Hiring and Retention of Un?t Employee 6) Negligent Supervisionof Employee 7) Hostile Work Environment 8) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 9) Retaliation 10) Negligent lnfliction of Emotional Distress Plaintiff, Gregg ?Rocky? Brooks brings this complaint against Defendants, John C. Depp, Miriam Segal, Brad Furman, Good Film Productions US, Inc., In?nitum Nihil and DOES 1?50, inclusive, based upon the following allegations: VENUE 1. This court has jurisdiction over this action and Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 410.10. This is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy, -- exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. Complaint for Damages BA KER, Omen, LitCRov DANIELIAN 100 West Broadway, Suite 990 Glendale, CA 91210 43mm Defendants, during times relevant to this action, have conducted substantial, systematic and continuous commercial activities in California. I 2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 395 and 395.5 as at least some of the acts and omissions complained of in this action occurred in the County of Los Angeles in the State of California. Each of the Defendants either owns property, maintains an of?ce, transacts business, engages in ?nancial operations, has an agent or agents within the County of Los Angeles, and/or is otherwise found within the County of Los Angeles, and each of the Defendants is within the jurisdiction of this Court for purposes of service of process. I PARTIES- 3. Gregg ?Rocky" Brooks is an individual and is now and, at all times mentioned in this complaint, was residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 4. John C. Depp is an individual and is now and, at all times mentioned in this complaint, was residing in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 5. Miriam Segal is an individual and is now and, at all times mentioned in this complaint, aproducer of the featurefiim ?Labyrinth? (retitle ?City of Lies") (herein referred to ,as or the doing substantial business in the state of California, including ?lming the movie the LABYRINTH 0n location in Los Angeles County. I 6. Brad Furman is an individual and is now and, at all times mentioned in this complaint, was the director of the LABYRINTH, doing substantial business in the state . of California, including filming the LABYRINTH on location in Los Angeles County. 7. Good Film Productions US, Inc. is a New York Corporation which is also registered to do business in and is doing business in the State of California, Cotinty of Los Angeles with of?ces at 150 S. Rodeo Drive, Third Floor, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. 8. ln?nitum Nihil is now and, at all times mentioned in this complaint, was a California Corporation doing business in the State of California with of?ces at 21700 Oxnard Street, Suite #400, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. I 9. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES luthrough 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious Complaint for Damages BAKER, OLSON, DANIELIAN 1.00 West Broadway, Suite 990 Glendale, CA 91210 'names. PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 10.At all times herein mentioned, each Defendant, including the ?ctitiously named DOE Defendants, were the partners, servants, agents, joint venturers, or employees of each of the remaining Defendants and were acting within the course and scope of their position, service,_agency, venture, or employment. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant ratified, approved, and adopted the conduct of the other Defendants. 11. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the- aforementioned Defendants either acted or caused action to occur which caused damages to PLAINTIFF. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS. 12. In 2017, PLAINTIFF was retained as the Location Manager for the feature film LABYRINTH by GOOD FILMS. 13.At all times relevant herein, SEGAL was one of the producers of LABYRINTH and the founding manager of GOOD FILMS. 17 14.At all times relevant herein, GOOD FILMS was one of the production companies reaponsible for the production of LABYRINTH. 15.At all times relevant herein, FURMAN was the director of LABYRINTH. 16.At all times relevant herein, DEPP was one of the "stars" of the LABYRINTH and a director for the production company 17.At all times relevant herein, INFINITUM was one of the production companies responsible for the production of LABYRINTH. 18.0n or about April 13, 2017, LABYRINTH was filming in Downtown Los Angeles, inside and around the Barclay Hotel Compiaint for Damages BAKER, QILSON, LECROY DANII-ILIAN 100 West Broadway, Suite 990 Glendale, CA 91210 43mm 2'8" 19. Filming permits were obtained from Film LA Contract Services allowing filming from 7:00 am. to 10:00 pm. The permits provided that filming outside the BARCLAY was to end at 7:00 pm. and filming inside the BARCLAY was to end at 10:00 pm. As Location Manager, it was responsibility to make sure the PRODUCTION was complying with the permit requirements and to liaise with FILM LA if any isSues arose. 20.8EGAL approached PLAINTIFF and requested he try and extend the hours of the permit in order to accommodate the needs of production and to accommodate DEPP, who wanted to direct two friends in an expanded version of the scene previously scheduled for the day. and SEGAL then approached the FILM LA site monitory, Jason Gonet to discuss the needs of production and the parameters of the permit extension. After reviewing all of needs for production, the FILM LA permit office was contacted and the first permit extension of the night was granted. 22.As filming continued, it became apparent that additional time was needed and SEGAL again requested PLAINTIFF obtain a permit extension. 23. PLAINTIFF and GONET again contacted the FILM LA permit office and were granted a final extension for filming. The new ?lming permits were set to expire at 11:00 pm. outside the BARCLAY and at 12:00 am. inside the BARCLAY. 24.At approximately 10:50 pm, GONET asked PLAINTIFF to inform the Ist AD, Paul Silver, that time was running out and that the current ?shot? would have to be the last exterior ?shot? of the night. 25. While PLAINTIFF was relaying the information regarding the last shot to the 1st AD, FURMAN interjected, instructing PLAINTIFF, "why don?t you tell that to Johnny Depp!? FURMAN did this knowing that DEPP would not be happy about the restriction. Complaint for Damages Ba KER. OLSON, LECROY DANIEMAN ?2.00 West Broadway, Suite 990 Glendale, CA 91210 removed DEPP from the scene. 26. DEPP was not the director on LABYRINTH and therefore there was no reason for PLAINTIFF to directly notify DEPP of ?lming restrictions. Furthermore, based on custom and practice on movie productions, FURMAN should never have instructed PLAINTIFF to speak with or give instruction to DEPP regarding production matters. I 27. PLAINTIFF, feeling he had no choice but to do as he was instructed, agreed to relay the message to DEPP. However, knowing DEPP may become upset and feeling the need to protect himself, PLAINTIFF started approaching the nearby, on-set LAPD officer Jim "Big" Rigg to get his assistance in relaying the message to DEPP. 28. Before PLAINTIFF could reach the LAPD Of?cer, DEPP accosted PLAINTIFF and began attacking him, angrily screaming in his face THE FUCK ARE YOU- HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO 29. PLAINTIFF remained calm and professional, explained who he was and that, as Location Manager, it was his responsibility to make sure the PRODUCTION complied with the permit requirements. I I 30.The altercation continued with DEPP screaming GIVE A FUCK WHO- YOU ARE AND YOU TELL ME WHAT TO 31.At the same time, while screaming at PLAINTIFF, DEPP angrily and forcefully punched PLAINTIFF twice in the lower left side of his rib cage and causing pain. 32. Despite having just been punched in the side, PLAINTIFF maintained his composure. When PLAINTIFF did not react to DEPP's satisfaction after being punched, DEPP yelled WILL GIVE YOU ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO PUNCH ME IN THE FACE RIGHT PLAINTIFF still did not react and DEPP continued to scream and berate him in front of a set full of people until own bodyguards physically Complaint for Damages BAKER, OLSON, Latinov DANIEEJAN 100 West Broadway, Suite 990 Giendnle, CA 91210 'were terminated immediately. :set out in this Cause of Action at length. 33.Throughout the altercation, PLAINTIFF noticed that breath reeked of alcohol. 34. PLAINTIFF is informed, believes and thereon alleges that DEPP had been drinking alcohol and using drugs throughout the day on set. 35.0n the Monday following the incident, April 16, 2017, PLAINTIFF returned to the production office to work on wrapping out the show. Upon arrival, PLAINTIFF was informed that SEGAL wanted him to write and sign a declaration stating that he would not sue the PRODUCTION. When PLAINTIFF declined to write such a statement, his services FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Assault and Battery- (Against DEFENDANT Depp and DOES 1-50) 36. PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 35 herein the same as though fully 37.0n or about April 13, 2017, as detailed above, DEPP accosted PLAINTIFF, got in his face, and proceeded to scream and berate PLAINTIFF placing. PLAINTIFF in fear of a. harmful or offensive contact. 38. In doing the above-alleged acts, DEPP intended to threaten PLAINTIFF and put him in apprehension of harmful contact with his person. 39.As a result of acts, PLAINTIFF was, in fact, placed in great apprehension of harmful contact with his person. 40.While screaming and threatening PLAINTIFF, DEPP maliciously and forcefully punched PLAINTIFF twice in the lower left side of his rib cage. 41. n doing the acts alleged herein, DEPP acted with the intent of making harmful contact with person. 42.At no time did PLAINTIFF consent to any of the acts of DEPP alleged herein. Complaint for Damages BAKER, OLSON, LECROY 3t DANIELIAN 1.09 West Broadway, Suite 990 (ii-lendale, (IA 91216 pun-l Ix.) i?a'w i?i p?a h?i i?A l?d 43.As a proximate result of acts, PLAINTIFF suffered physical pain and emotional and injury, all of which have caused and continue to cause PLAINTIFF and emotional distress. As a result of these injuries, PLAINTIFF has suffered general damages. 44. DEPP's aforementioned conduct was willful and malicious and was intended to oppress and cause injury to PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF is- therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against DEFENDANT Depp and DOES 1-50) 45. PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 44 herein the same as though fully set out in this Cause of Action at length. 46. DEPP verbally and physically attacked PLAINTIFF in front of the cast and crew of the PRODUCTION, berating and demeaning PLAINTIFF for doing what FURMAN requested he do. 47. DEPP's conduct was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of causing PLAINTIFF to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress I 48.As a proximate result of yelling, demeaning, and punching PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF suffered pain, severe humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and body. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Neg?gence (Against DEFENDANT Depp and DOES 1-50) 49. PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 48 herein the same as though fully set out in this Cause of Action at length. 50.0n or about April 13, 2017, DEPP negligently, carelessly and recklessly harmed- PLAINTIFF in such a manner that he placed PLAINTIFF in apprehension of harmful- contact and caused his ?st to make harmful violent contact with body. Complaint for Damages BAKER, OLSON, LECnov DANEELIAN 100 West Broadway, Suite 99.0 Glendale, CA 91210 ?o co arcs INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN, and, in doing the acts herein described and referred and in the transaction of the business of the employment or agency. GOOD FILMS, an undue risk to persons such as PLAINTIFF would exist because of the employment. 51 .As a direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless, reckless and unlawful conduct of DEPP, PLAINTIFF suffered pain, severe humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and body FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent - Respondeat Superior (Against All Defendants). 52. PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 51 herein the same as though fully set out in this Cause of Action at length. 53.At all times herein mentioned, DEPP was an agent and employee of GOOD FILMS, to, was acting in the course and within the scope of his authority as agent and employee, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN are therefore liable to plaintiff for the acts of DEPP as heretofore alleged. FIFTH CAUSE OF Negligent Hiring and Retention of Un?t Employee (Against All Defendants) 54. PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 53 herein the same-as though fully set out in this Cause of Action at length. '55. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in doing the acts as here alleged, GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that DEPP was incompetent and un?t and that 56. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DEPP was under the influence of drugs and/ or alcohol while working on set. 57. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN knew or, in the exercise of I Complaint for Damages BAKER. DANIELIAN 108 West Broadway, Suite 990 Glendale, CA 91210 28' reasonable diligence, should have known that DEPP was under theinfluence of drugs and for alcohol. 58. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believesa?nd thereon alleges that DEPP has a volatile temper and becomes easily agitated and hostile towards others. 59. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that GOOD FILMS, SEGAL, INFINITUM, and FURMAN knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that DEPP has a volatile temper and becomes easily agitated and hostile towards others. 60. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN knew or, in the exercise-70f reasonable diligence, should have known that, due to his temper and his use of drugs and 'or alcohol, DEPP posed a potential danger to other employees on set, including PLAINTIFF. 61.Despite the advance knowledge, GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN retained DEPP as an employee in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others. As a result of this conscious disregard for the rights of PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Supervision of Employee (Against All Defendants) 62. PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 61 herein the same as though fully set out in this Cause of Action at length. 63. Notwithstanding the knowledge that DEPP was incompetent and unfit and that DEPP posed a potential danger to other employees on set due to his intoxication, GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN failed to adequately supervise DEPP. Complaint for Damages OLSON. Latiaov 8: IMNIELIAN 100 West Broadway, Suite 990 Glendale, CA 91210 .10resulted in PLAINTIFF being assaulted by DEPP during filming64.The failure of GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN to adequately- supervise DEPP was the proximate cause of PLAINTIFF's injury. Had GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN properly supervised DEPP, he would not have been intoxicated on set and he would not have attacked PLAINTIFF 65. Despite advance knowledge GOOD FILMS INFINITUM, SEGAL and FURMAN allowed DEPP to remain on set in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others. As a result of this conscious disregard for the rights of PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF is entitled to an award of punitive damages from GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN. I SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Hostile Work Environment (Against All Defendants)- 66. PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 65 herein the same as though fully set out in this Cause of Action at length. 67. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that intoxication- and temper created a hostile, abusive and? unsafe work envirbnment which eventually 68. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that FURMAN's conduct on set, including, but not limited to, negligently delegating his duty to direct the PRODUCTION to DEPP and negligently instructing PLAINTIFF to act outside the scope of his responsibilities and directly inform DEPP that ?lming needed to cease created and or contributed to the creation on a hostile, abusive, and unsafe work environment which eventually resulted in PLAINTIFF being assaulted by DEPP during ?lming. 69. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that behavior was creating a hostile, unsafe work environment. .. - 10 - Complaint for Damages BAKER, 135 IJANIELIAN 100 ?at Btoadway Surio 990 Glendale, CA 91210 00 0.70. PLAINTIFF is informed'and believes and thereon alleges that GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that FURMAN's behavior was creating a hostile, unsafe work environment. 71. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that despite being" aware that ongoing problems on set were creating a hostile, unsafe work environment, GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN did nothing to remedy the situation. 72. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges-that not only did GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN not attempt to remedy the situation, but FURMAN further exasperated the situation when he instructed PLAINTIFF to personally approach DEPP and inform him that filming'needed to stop. 73. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that despite being aware that FURMAN's behavior on set was creating a hostile, unsafe work environment, GOOD 16 FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN did nothing to remedy the situation. 74.The conduct of GOOD FILMS, SEGAL, and FURMAN and DEPP was a substantial factor in PLAINTIFF being assaulted and battered on set". EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION- Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Against Defendants Good Films, lnfinitum, and Segal) 75. PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 74 herein the same as though fully set oUt in this Cause of Action at length. 76. On or about April 16, 2017, after the assault and battery incident mentioned herein, GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, and SEGAL, or an agent thereof, demanded PLAINTIFF execute a declaration stating that he would not sue the PRODUCTION, its employees or agents for the assault and battery incident which occurred on April 13, 2017. Complaint for Damages BA KER, OLSON, LECROY DANIELIAN 300 West Broadway, Suite 990 Glendale, CA 91210 28-. I 77.GOOD and demand goes against public policy as-it deprives individuals, such as PLAINTIFF, of an important legal right. PLAINTIFF had a legal right to seek redress for injuries arising out of a workplace assault and battery through a civil action. 78-.When PLAINTIFF refused to execute any such declaration, GOOD FILMS, INF INITUM, and SEGAL retaliated by terminating PLAINTIFF on the spot. 79.As a result of GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, and SEGAL conduct, PLAINTIFF suffered harm, including lost earnings and other employment bene?ts, humiliation and embarrassment and mental anguish. 80. In doing the acts set forth herein, GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, and SEGAL knew the conduct required of PLAINTIFF was unlawful and violated PLAINTIFF's rights. Despite this knowledge, GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, and SEGAL subjected PLAINTIFF to unjust hardship in'conscious disregard for PLAINTIFF's rights by demanding he waive his right to I redress under civil law or lose his job. GOOD FILMS, and SEGAL Conduct, by and through their agents, warrants the assessment of punitive damages. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation- (Against Defendants Good Films, lnfinitum, and Segal) 81.PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 80 herein the same as though fully set out in this Cause of Action at length. 82.The discharge of an employee in retaliation for resisting employer's unlawful demands made in violation of laws that secure important public policies disregards those policies, and gives rise to a common law action in tort. 83. PLAINTIFF was terminated for refusing to waive his legal rights after being assaulted and battered on set by another employee/agent'under Defendants' control. - 12 - .. Complaint for Damages BAKER. arson, LECROY DANIELIAN 100 West Broadway, Suite 990 (Erlendaie, CA 91210 set out in- this Cause of Action at lengthGOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, and SEGAL violation of PLAINTIFF's legal rights is inconsistent and hostile to the public?s interest. 84.As a result of GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, and SEGAL conduct, PLAINTIFF suffered harm, including lost earnings and other employment benefits, humiliation and embarrassment and mental anguish. 85.GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, and SEGAL committed the acts alleged herein oppressively and maliciously, with the wrongful intention of injuring PLAINTIFF, with imprOper motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of rights, in that GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, and SEGAL demanded PLAINTIFF waive his legal right or lose his job. Thus, PLAINTIFF is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent lnfliction of Emotional Distress (Against All Defendants) 86. PLAINTIFF incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 85 herein the same as though fully 87. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and- thereon alleges GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and or, should have known, that their failure to exercise due care in hiring DEPP, supervising DEPP and maintaining a safe work environment would place employees, such as PLAINTIFF, in danger. 88.GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN failure to control conduct while on set, as herein alleged, proximately caused PLAINTIFF to suffer pain, humiliation, severe emotional distress, and mental suffering. 89. Furthermore, GOOD INFINITUM's, and SEGAL's wrongful termination of PLAINTIFF caused PLAINTIFF to suffer humiliation severe emotional distress and mental su?enng. 13 .. .. Complaint for Damages BAKER. OLSON. LECROY Sc Barr-mum 100 West Broadway, Suite 990 (i-lendaie, CA 91210 omuamemm 90. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that GOOD FILMS, INFINITUM, SEGAL, and FURMAN negligent conduct, as alleged here, was the proximate cause of his severe emotional distress, humiliation, and mental suffering. PRAYER FOR REILIEF Wherefore, Gregg ?Rocky" Br00ks, prays forjudgment against John C. Depp, Miriam- Segal, Brad Furman, and Good Film Productions, inc, ln?nitum Nihil and each of them as follows: 1. For General damages to be proven at trial; 2. For Punitive damages to be proven at trial; 3. For cost of suit herein incurred; 4. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: 7/5/ I 8 BAKER, OLSON, Le- ROY DANIELIAN- BY Arbella Az' i534 Attorneysf Plaintiff 14 Complaint for Damages