Winick v. Noble La Events, Inc.

1

STEPHEN WINICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NOBLE LA EVENTS, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents;

PROSIGHT SPECIALTY INSURANCE, Intervener and Respondent.

B305697

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

January 18, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC569126 Patricia D. Nieto, Judge. Affirmed.

Samuel O. Ogbogu for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Bordin Semmer, Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Bryan Aghakhani, and Christopher Blanchard for Defendant and Respondent Dick Clark Productions, Inc Lieber & Galperin, Yury Galperin, and Jason A. Lieber for Defendant and Respondent Thomas Applewhite.

Nelson Griffin, Frederic T. Tanner, and Steven A. Garcia for Defendants and Respondents John McKillop and Noble Associates Worldwide Inc., and Intervener and Respondent Prosight Specialty Insurance.

SEGAL J.

INTRODUCTION

Dick Clark Productions, Inc. produced the 2014 Golden Globe Awards show, an annual ceremony recognizing achievements in film and television. Stephen Winick occasionally photographed celebrities and sold his pictures. By 2014 Winick had attempted to "crash" (i.e., attend without permission) multiple events where celebrities were present including at least one prior Golden Globes Awards show. (See Winick v. Hilton Management, LLC (Oct. 29, 2018 B280774) [nonpub. opn.].)

Dick Clark Productions hired a private security company, Noble LA Events, Inc., to provide security for the 2014 Golden Globes Awards show. Familiar with Winick and his reputation, Noble LA put Winick on its "No-Fly" list of individuals Noble LA generally did not permit at events it provided security for.

The 2014 Golden Globes Awards show was at a hotel in Beverly Hills. Even though his name was on the No-Fly list, Winick managed to obtain a credential that allowed him to enter the press room where members of the media viewed the ceremony. On learning Winick was in the press room, two Noble LA security guards approached Winick, physically removed him from the room, and took him to another room in the hotel Noble LA used as its command post. The security guards detained Winick there until law enforcement arrived. The entire incident lasted 45 minutes. After complaining to the police, Winick left the event.

Winick sued Dick Clark Productions, Noble LA, and several other entities and individuals involved in the incident, asserting various causes of action, including for false imprisonment, assault, and battery. Following a court trial, the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants. Among other things, the court ruled the actions of the security guards were reasonable under the circumstances. Winick appealed from the judgment. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Winick Files a Lawsuit

Winick filed this action in January 2015 against Dick Clark Productions; Noble LA Events Inc.; John McKillop, who owned and operated Noble LA at the time; and Thomas Applewhite, who worked for an independent contractor Noble LA hired to assist with security for the event and who was one of the security guards involved in the incident. In his operative third amended complaint, Winick asserted causes of action for false imprisonment, assault, battery, negligence, and violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 52.1) (Bane Act).

Dick Clark Productions, Noble LA, and McKillop demurred to the third amended complaint. Noble LA and McKillop argued Winick did not state sufficient facts to support any cause of action; Dick Clark Productions did not challenge the false imprisonment, battery, or assault causes of action, but argued Winick did not allege facts sufficient to state causes of action for negligence or for violation of the Bane Act. The trial court overruled the demurrers to the false imprisonment, assault, battery, and negligence causes of action, but sustained without leave to amend the demurrers to the cause of action for violation of the Bane Act.^[1] Winick later added Noble Associates Worldwide, Inc., another entity owned by McKillop that had an ownership interest in Noble LA, as a defendant.^[2]

B. The Court Excludes Winick's Trial Exhibits and Conducts a Court Trial

Winick never posted jury fees. During a status conference in August 2018-more than three years after Winick filed his complaint-the trial court set the final status conference for February 2019 and the trial for March 2019. In February 2019, in advance of the final status conference, Noble LA, Dick Clark Productions, and Applewhite filed proposed witness and exhibit lists. Winick did not.

The court, at Winick's request, continued the trial date several times and eventually reset the final status conference for August 15, 2019, and the trial for August 27, 2019. Shortly before the continued final status conference, Dick Clark Productions filed a motion to continue the trial on the ground counsel for Winick had failed to cooperate with counsel for the defendants on various issues. Counsel for the defendants claimed counsel for Winick had refused to meet and confer to prepare joint trial documents and had failed to make Winick or Winick's expert available for deposition. The trial court denied the request to continue the trial, imposed monetary sanctions against Winick for failing to meet and confer with the defendants, and precluded Winick from calling any witnesses or introducing any exhibits that were not on the defendants' witness and exhibit lists.

On August 27, 2019 the trial court observed that Winick had not posted jury fees. Counsel for Winick offered to post jury fees that day, but Noble LA and Dick Clark Productions (both of which had previously posted jury fees) waived their right to a jury trial and requested a court trial. The court ordered the trial to proceed as a court trial, stating it was "way too late" for Winick to post fees. On August 29, 2019 counsel for Winick orally asked the court to grant him relief from his jury trial waiver. The court again denied the request, stating that Winick had already delayed the trial enough by failing to adequately prepare for trial and that setting the case for a jury trial would cause further delay.

C. The Parties Present Different Versions of What Happened at the Awards Show

1. Noble LA Knew Winick Would Try To Crash the Golden Globes Awards Show

McKillop testified Dick Clark Productions hired Noble LA to provide security for the 2014 Golden Globes Awards show. Under the agreement, Noble LA's authority included "apprehending, detaining, investigating [and] ejecting an unauthorized person at the event."

McKillop knew about Winick before the awards show because, according to McKillop, Winick repeatedly tried to attend celebrity events without authorization. McKillop first encountered Winick at the 2011 Grammy Awards ceremony, where Winick was present without a credential, pass, or ticket. At the 2012 Golden Globes Awards show, Winick "crashed the ballroom" and was caught and arrested.^[3] At the 2013 Golden Globes Awards show, McKillop spotted Winick on the property of the hotel that hosted the event (the same hotel that hosted the 2014 ceremony), and Winick ran away. McKillop said he discusses the fact that "Winick is a crasher" with his clients "all the time," including with his primary contact person at Dick Clark Productions. As McKillop put it, Winick is "discussed [for] every Golden Globes. It's an ongoing discussion."

Noble LA maintained a "No-Fly" list of people who had threatened security personnel or failed to comply with the rules and regulations of prior events and whom Noble LA generally would not allow at future events. Winnick was on the list. To enter the Golden Globes Awards show, invited guests had to obtain a credential, which was issued by a third party, not Noble LA. McKillop testified that he gave the No-Fly list to the company that issued the credentials, but that the entity mistakenly issued Winick a credential for the event. Under Noble LA's security agreement with Dick Clark Productions, however, McKillop had the authority to void credentials. Michael Izquierdo, another security guard employed by Noble LA who worked at the 2014 Golden Globes Awards show, similarly testified Dick Clark Productions gave Noble LA the authority to revoke someone's credential if he or she did not follow event rules.

2. Noble LA Presents Its Version of the Incident

Izquierdo testified that on the day of the Golden Globes Awards show he instructed security personnel to look for people on the No-Fly list. Applewhite testified that during the event he received a radio call reporting that Winick was in the press room without authorization. Applewhite, who had seen Winick's name and photograph on the No-Fly list, approached Winick, who was seated in a row of chairs, and noticed Winick was not displaying a credential. Applewhite asked Winick four or five times to show his credential, but Winick ignored him. Applewhite then asked Winick to follow him out of the press room so he could verify Winick's credential. Applewhite stated that eventually he touched Winick's elbow and "guided him out of the aisle" and that Winick did not offer much resistance. Once they cleared the aisle, a second guard, Robert Dixon, helped "escort" Winick out of the room.

Applewhite and Dixon took Winick to Noble LA's command post and left him with other Noble LA security guards. According to Applewhite, after they left the press room Winick became irate and began shouting profanities.

Izquierdo testified he interacted with Winick in the command post. The door to the command post was closed, and other security guards were present. Izquierdo questioned Winick to find out how he had been able to enter the event and where his...