Demurrer With Motion To Strike Ccp 43010MotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.October 11, 2017Electronically FILED by Sygerior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 04/24/2020 01:52 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Chambers,Deputy Clerk OO 0 N N n s W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A M A R O | B A L D W I N L L P 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AMARO | BALDWIN LLP Michael L. Amaro, Esq. (Bar No. 109514) Sanaz Cherazaie, Esq. (Bar No. 273944) 180 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 850 Long Beach, California 90802 Telephone: (562) 912-4157 Facsimile: (562) 912-7919 mamaro(@amarolawyers.com BROD0071 Attorneys for Defendant, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT (CHATSWORTH) TALIA WISE, by and through her Guardian ad | CASE NO. BC679307 Litem JULIE WISE Case assigned to Judge Stephen P. Pfahler - Dept Plaintiffs, F49 \2 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER SIX FLAGS; SIX FLAGS MAGIC TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED MOUNTAIN; SIX FLAGS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; and AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, SANAZ CHERAZAIE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Defendants. DATE: July 27, 2020 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT: F49 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION(S) RESERVATION ID: 045649327644 Complaint Filed: October 11,2017 Trial Date: September 21, 2020 TO PLAINTIFFS AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 27, 2020 at 8:30 a.m., or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department F49 of the above-entitled court, Defendant, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC (hereinafter, “Defendant and "Park”) will move the court for an order sustaining its Demurrer to the Third, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action of the First Amended Complaint alleging willful misconduct, fraud, and voluntary undertaking, respectively, against Moving Defendant. ] DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise 1 || Defendant. 2 The Demurrer will be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, and will be based 3 |{ on the grounds that Plaintiffs fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for willful 4 || misconduct and voluntary undertaking, as these are not independent causes of action, and Plaintiff, 5 || fails to allege facts sufficient to support a claim against Magic Mountain, LLC for fraud, because 6 || Plaintiff's claim that Magic Mountain made fraudulent statements, to the State of California, 7 || regarding the certification of the Green Lantern ride, and there are no facts alleged that fraudulent 8 [| statements were made to Plaintiff. 9 This Demurrer will be further based upon this Notice of Demurrer, the attached Demurrer, A 10 || the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and records on file in this action, and 3 11 [| upon such further oral and documentary evidence as may be presented before or at the hearing on N 12 || this Demurrer. 313 7 i DATED: apr PY, 2020 AMARO | BALDWIN LLP ° 15 By: < SANAZ CHERAZAIE = 16 Attorneys for Defendant, < 17 MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise 1 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 The basis for the Demurrer to each of Plaintiff's causes of action is as follows: 3 Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action for Willful Misconduct 4 1. Plaintiff's cause of action for willful misconduct fails because Plaintiff does not have 5 || an actionable claim for punitive damages against Defendant. Shepardson v. McLellan (1963) 59 6 || Cal.2d 83; Savage v. Marle (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 241 As set forth in the concurrently filed Motion 7 || to Strike, punitive damages are not available to Plaintiff because Plaintiff fails to meet the pleading 8 || standards set forth in Civil Code § 3294(b). 9 Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for Fraud a 10 2, The Fourth Cause of Action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of 3 11 || action for fraud against Defendant, Magic Mountain, LLC. The elements of fraud that will give rise = 12 || to a tort action are (1) material misrepresentation by defendant; (2) knowledge of falsity of the N 13 || statement; (3) intent to deceive or induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (5) a 14 || resulting damages. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4™ 951, 974; Service = 15 || by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4™ 1807, 1816. Here, Plaintiff's claim that 3 16 || Magic Mountain made fraudulent statements, to the State of California, regarding the certification of : 17 || the Green Lantern ride. However, as stated above, such claim is based on an inaccurate 18 || representation of the Mr. Kelly's testimony, and will ultimately fail. More importantly, if Plaintiff's 19 position is believed, the alleged fraudulent statement was made to the State of California, and not to 20 || Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot allege that Magic Mountain made any statement to Plaintiff directly, on 21 || which Plaintiff relied when she chose to ride the Green Lantern ride. Hence, Plaintiff cannot plead 27 || @ cause of action for fraud. 23 Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action for Voluntary Undertaking 24 3. Plaintiff's sixth cause of action for voluntary undertaking fails because voluntary 25 undertaking is not an independent cause of action under California law. Specifically, the voluntary 2 undertaking doctrine relates to the duty of care in a negligence cause of action, but is not an 27 independent cause of action. City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1006, 28 1011. 3 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise - IL. OO 0 N N Un Bs W N o < A M A R O | B A L D W I N LL P ® I 8 8 R U N RE RE E SC x I a & F o wo = III. IV. VL TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION wcocsusnosnsnmssssoveminssssmmssmssmmmesssssnisomissenms o s ei ai sais sists LEGAL STANDARD FOR DENURRER. convo ims in ws psa PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WILLFUL IL IBEICNPRNILIECE «orennsmcnosoeeasoss i asconmsom sesso emma LS AAS AA Ga RY i. The Proposed Amendment to the Complaint Lacks Adequate Allegations that a Corporate Officer, Director, or Managing Agent of Defendant Authorized or Ratified the AlleEet WHEL ABHONE.....ccuusvomricmsrsmmmommsoesssmssssmorss cossssssn esis iis sa m staissvtisssysmserinss PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST I HL - PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VOLUNTARY LH TE is scons is am eA INS COBICTISTOMN ss cxmnsscmsusmmummunssnosnimens ies soos es Hentai swe SEAS SHA BFS RSS SASH /DEMURRER FAC Wisc 1 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 || Cases 3 || Antique Arts Corp. V. City of Torrance (1974) 38 Cal. App 3d SBE ..commmmmmummonsisssmssss ss assis i Sasa sa s sists impinsans 13 4 Blegen v. Superior Court (1981) 5 BER TPN IRI IEE SEN occur somtimes AS HASEENO 5530 10 6 || City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) Z11 Cal. APP. 3d 1006 nium asians ieee 4,12, 13 7 College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 RL ec cvssomoriertiv cin immersion oe Cia EAE RTRs RR Ea Pus 10 9 || Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 CM IBN nmin i ER Assan 3,12 A 10 - G.D. Searle & Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 5 1 49 CLAPP. 22. eevee eeveeseeessseess esses esessssssasss ssa sss ses eeseeses sess sense sssssemenseenesessasesssssens 9,10 = 12 || Hill v. Miller (1966) A BG 81.20 75 Tisionmoosumssm aims ness sensi a sas ah Ue HR Be es ea Gov HS Samm asa 8 MH 13 - Mann v. State of California (1977) B14 {| 70 CALAPPIA 73 rere seesrseseesessssesess esses sssesessssssesssssseese sense sessesssseeesee essere 13 $15 || McCarthy v. Frost (1973) < 33 Cal ADDI BTL cosines monies onions oss isis ais 55 ei ee some Aor Fe RRR 12 2 16 < Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 17 EOE DRDIUER IM. .coocomnaimnsswsaseisssspomssissiidgloms ends os a ed oe SAT esis 9 18 || Perkins v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 117 Cal ADD 30 |iussasmmmmsmosimmmmiossomssstmimi ss assim mii srs sss soos: 9 19 Savage v. Marle (1974) 20 39 CalLAPP.3d 241 circa reste ste a eb esa segs e sane n eet bebe beens nan ena aan 3,9 21 || Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal APD AY 1702.0 cvsmcsnmummnmsssins tims ssn iss as sass sass Feo das aes Rssaves 8 22 Serrano v. Priest (1971) 23 0 ETE STE SPMRE ccs le HN ES PNAS 8 24 || Shepardson v. McLellan (1963) BY CREA 83 imcimnsmnsiiuaramunveo sess mmo rms ie ie ss as sss A as 3,9 25 Taylor v Superior Court (1979) 26 24 Cal.3d 890... coercion essere sbeebs este see sree beac neers bbe be bean a ene b ea REe bse ee 10 27 || White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) D1, CALAN SOF. oocossusasnisnnvosnsseons dames ams as sss Es SY Ss BS PRESET TSR REET 11 28 Williams v. State of California (1983) ii DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /MDEMURRER FAC Wise m s I i IE eon sms iiss inn ie eon PA Se NE a ES ei EL St os 13 Statutes Cy. Code § 3I0UCIT) ovo sansssssss simsssitsnns RU 455 5a pamsa sessions sass 15 sant 19520 AA SR SAA REBASARESS 9 RCLTEE CSTE 5 CATEMIE IN conn cons airesicn sonm 55 0 SAS EB SEEIS GYS 8 CH Code B IZDBEDY, cuousssevssssisssrvssmssenssmmeeossessss in a p o shee asta ae Ae AERA RRA 3,8,10 Civil’ Code Secon I29Ha). cumini oss iis Gams iss shan BUTI TaA as amsnssnss 9 LOE LH. FRDE. BOB .cocinesinsisvinnmssimiomsmtsmms toss sims me sam ris oman ven sso 8 Code Civ. Proc. Section 430,10 8) wommausammmussrmmmanmsers is vos mms sais hss aes a sis ssss iev 8 OO 0 9 O&O Wn pA w n A M A R O | B A L D W I N LL P N o N o N o nN No N a N o N o - -_ p- - - - p h p- - t bd ~ aN wh SH w ~~ - oS O o o ~ aN wn ES N Ww No b= o ND oo iii DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT MEMURRER FAC Wise 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 L 3 INTRODUCTION + This case involves an April 18, 2015 incident, while Plaintiff, a 13-year old girl (DOB: 5 || 5/6/01), was on an 8™ grade "full day/turn-around" trip with her school, Del Webb Middle School in 6 [| Henderson, Nevada. Plaintiff alleges that toward the end of the trip, and before getting back on the 7 || bus to return to Nevada, she was injured while riding the Green Lantern ride at Magic Mountain. 8 The Green Lantern ride opened at Magic Mountain on July 1, 2011. It is a high-thrill ride, 9 || with back to back seating, which was “suspended” outside the running rail/track. The ride was A 10 || designated as “high thrill”, since each seat rotated 180 degrees from the track itself (as opposed to 3 11 || riding on top of the track). The ride was designed and installed by Intamin, Ltd., one of the most 5 12 || well-known ride manufacturers. Prior to opening the ride to the public, and as part of the > 13 || “commissioning” or certification process, Intamin performed acceleration testing; and, the results R 14 || provided were that the ride forces were less than the maximums set forth in the ASTM standard 2 15 || (both in terms of peak accelerations and duration of the same). 3 16 Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and her friends rode a number of roller coasters at the Park, and A 17 || then, just before leaving for the day, they decided to "take one last ride". Plaintiff claims that when 18 || "the ride was at its peak and 'thrill' stage", her body was "shot forward" and she hit her head 19 || somewhere on the ride vehicle. In her deposition, Plaintiff claimed she "blacked out" and could not 20 || remember where, or if, she hit her head. Her friend, Anastasia, whose deposition was also taken, 21 [| was unsure when Plaintiff said she hit her head, but testified that Plaintiff did tell her at some point 22 || later that day, after Plaintiff had left First Aid care, that she had hit her head. While at the Park, 23 || Plaintiff never advised any Park personnel that she had been injured on the Green Lantern attraction. 24 The First Aid Report from the Park tells a quite different story than Plaintiff's allegations in 25 || this case. At approximately 4:55 pm, Plaintiff reported that she was "feeling dizzy and nauseous" 26 || and "had not had enough water to drink". She was sitting on one of the midways, and did not 27 || state that her symptoms were related to a ride. One of Plaintiff's school counselor's, Christine 28 || Corbin signed the First Aid report, attesting to the description of the "incident". Ms. Corbin's 4 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise © © ~N a un s&s WwW NN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A M A R O | B A L D W I N L L P 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 deposition was completed in this case, and she confirmed that she called Plaintiff’s mother, who was in Nevada, and at no point in time did Plaintiff ever state that she hit her head on a ride. or was injured on Green Lantern. On July 24, 2019, witness, Vincent Kevin Kelly, signed an Affidavit filed herewith, setting forth the following: ° The July 12, 2019 Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly (attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint) was prepared by attorney Chad Fuss, Esq.. That Affidavit contained incorrect information, to which Mr. Kelly told Mr. Fuss he did not attest. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, § 2-7). ® Mr. Kelly confirms that he was absolutely not under duress from Magic Mountain, LLC at any time. The portion the Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, signed on July 12, 2019, which states: "I signed Exhibit 1 as the request of Magic Mountain, LLC in order for Magic Mountain, LLC to open and operate the "Green Lantern" roller coaster for public use. | signed the letter attached as Exhibit 1 under duress from Magic Mountain, LLC" was not Mr. Kelly's statement. Mr. Kelly does not believe that Magic Mountain put him under duress. That was not the actual circumstance. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, § 5). ° Mr. Kelly told Plaintiff's attorney, Chad Fuss, Esq., not to use the word "duress" in the Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly dated July 12, 2019. Mr. Kelly made this very clear to Mr. Fuss that the term "duress" was mistaken, and was not my statement. Mr. Kelly told Mr. Fuss that "I retract the word duress because Magic Mountain provided no duress." Magic Mountain did not put Mr. Kelly under duress, under any means. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, 6). ° Mr. Kelly believed the Affidavit that he signed on July 12, 2019 was a draft, and the final version of the Affidavit would delete the statement "I signed the letter attached as Exhibit 1 under duress from Magic Mountain, LLC". Mr. Kelly specifically told Mr. Fuss not to include that statement. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, § 7). » The letter to Bryan Eckman, State of California, Permanent Amusement Ride Division ("DOSH") attached as Exhibit 1 was a procedural requirement by the State of California. 2 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise 1 || The certification letter was required by DOSH and not by Magic Mountain, LLC. (Affidavit of 2 || Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, § 8). 3 . The requirement for signing the letter was not by Magic Mountain. Magic Mountain 4 || did not put any demands on Mr. Kelly to sign the letter to Bryan Eckman/DOSH dated June 27, 5 || 2011. The letter was a procedural letter, per DOSH's requirements. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin 6 || Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, 9 9). 7 ® The language of the letter to Bryan Eckman/DOSH, dated June 27, 2011, states "I 8 || have personally observed the completed ride and certify that is has been constructed according to 9 || final plans, and the ride meets all applicable design requirements set forth in subchapter 6.2 of c 10 || chapter 4 of Division 1 (starting at Section 3195.1 of this title." This was standard language in the ) 11 || certification letter required by DOSH, not Magic Mountain, LLC. Mr. Kelly explained to Plaintiff's 5 12 || counsel that multiple entities were involved with the design requirements of the Green Lantern ride. 3 13 || It was Mr. Kelly's understanding that multiple entities were involved with the final ride certification. A 14 || The letter was consistent with the procedural requirements of DOSH. and the letter provided = 15 || language required by the state of California. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, < 5 16 || 910). 17 “ The language in Paragraph 8 of the Affidavit dated July 12, 2019 (attached to 18 |{ Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend), which states: The terms "these statements are impossible to 19 [| meet and were not in fact true," was not a statement Mr. Kelly prepared. Mr. Kelly believes it was a 20 || statement prepared by Chad Fuss. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, § 11). zl ° Based on Mr. Kelly's knowledge, the Green Lantern ride was properly certified, and 22 || he has no reason to believe that the ride did not meet State of California certification requirements. 23 || (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, 112). 24 ® The Green Lantern ride was designed by Intaride. Mr. Kelly was familiar with 25 || Intraride by his professional experience, and believes that they are a very capable engineering firm. 26 || (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, §13). 27 o Mr. Kelly has no reason to believe that the Green Lantern ride contained any defects. 28 || (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, 114). 6 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise WO 0 ~~ & wn Hs WwW o N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A M A R O | B A L D W I N L L P 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 . Mr. Kelly has no reason to believe that the Green Lantern ride failed to comply with regulations set by the California Department of Industrial Relations. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, 115). . Mr. Kelly has no reason to believe that Magic Mountain provided false statements to the State of California. Mr. Kelly has no reason to believe that Magic Mountain engaged in any fraud, at any time. Mr. Kelly has specifically does not believe that Magic Mountain engaged in any fraud regarding the certification of the Green Lantern ride. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, 916). . In his experience with Magic Mountain, LLC over decades of working with Six Flags Magic Mountain, Mr. Kelly found that Magic Mountain is honorable, honest, and works in the interest of public safety. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, 17). ° Magic Mountain never told Mr. Kelly has to submit any false information to the State of California. Indeed, Mr. Kelly has cannot even conceive of Magic Mountain asking him to submit false information, and that was never been his experience with Magic Mountain. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, 18). ° Mr. Magic Mountain never ordered Mr. Kelly has to sign any letter to Bryan Eckman/DOSH. (Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, dated July 24, 2019, 19). Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint relies on a draft Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly prepared by Plaintiff's counsel, which Mr. Kelly testified is incomplete and inaccurate, to set forth several sham allegations. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) Premises Liability against all Defendants; (2) Negligence again all Defendants; (3) Willful Misconduct against Magic Mountain, LLC and Six Flags entities; (4) Products Liability - Negligence, against Intardie, LLC and Intaride International Incorporated; (5) Fraud against Magic Mountain, LLC and Six Flags entities; and (6) Voluntary Undertaking against Magic Mountain, LLC and Six Flags entities. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Magic Mountain, LLC, based on the alleged causes of action for premises liability, negligent, willful misconduct, and fraud. 7 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise 1 Defendant hereby request that this Court sustain its Demurrer to Plaintiff's Third Cause of 2 || Action for Willful Misconduct, Fifth Cause of Action for Fraud, and Sixth Cause of Action for 3 || Voluntary Undertaking. 4 IL 5 LEGAL STANDARD FOR DEMURRER 6 The function of a demurrer is to present to the court an issue of law regarding the sufficiency 7 || of the allegations set out in the pleading under attack. Code Civ. Proc. §589(a). Schmidt v. 8 || Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., Section 430.10 9 || (e), a demurrer may be filed on the grounds that “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to a 10 || constitute a cause of action.” Accordingly, when a demurrer is sustained, the court determines 3 11 || whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Hill v. Miller (1966) 64 = 12 || Cal.2d 757, 759. In analyzing a demurrer, a court “admits all material facts properly pleaded, but ; 13 || not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, R14 |] 591. S15 111. 5 16 PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT B 17 Plaintiff's cause of action for willful misconduct fails because Plaintiff does not have an 18 || actionable claim for punitive damages against Defendant. Shepardson v. McLellan (1963) 59 Cal.2d 19 || 83; Savage v. Marle (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 241 As set forth in the concurrently filed Motion to 20 || Strike, punitive damages are not available to Plaintiff because Plaintiff fails to meet the pleading 21 || standards set forth in Civil Code § 3294(b). 22 Punitive damages are only available where a plaintiff alleges specific facts which establish 23 || that defendants acted with “oppression, fraud, or malice.” Civil Code § 3294(a). Merely pleading 24 || the words from the code is insufficient to plead a demand for such damages without other facts to 25 || support that allegation. Perkins v. Sup. Ct. (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1,7. Rather, plaintiffs must 26 || allege facts demonstrating that each defendant acted in a highly malicious, intentional, and deliberate 27 || manner that some courts have identified as requiring an animus malus. G.D. Searle & Co. v. Sup. 28 || Ct. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 32. 8 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise 1 Pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294(a), punitive damages are only appropriate where clear 2 || and convincing evidence shows that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. 3 || Section 3294(c) supplies the following definitions, as used in this section: 4 (1) ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause 5 injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the 6 defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of 7 others. 8 (2) ‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and 9 unjust hardship in conscious disregards of that person’s rights. c 10 Further, in order to properly plead malice, a plaintiff must allege despicable conduct which : 11 || is so vile, base, contemptible, miserably wretched, or loathsome as to be despised by ordinary, = 12 || decent people. Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 331. The 3 13 || standards for imposition of punitive damages include acts so wanton and willful that injury to others A 14 |] is substantially certain. See, Taylor v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-96. Even “recklessness” = 15 || without more is inadequate to support an award of punitive damages. (Emphasis added.) G.D. z 16 || Searle & Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 32. . 17 Hence, punitive damages are rarely recoverable in negligence actions. As the California 18 || Supreme Court stated in Taylor v Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 899-900, ordinarily, routine 19 || negligence or even reckless disobedience would not justify an award of punitive damages. The 20 || recoverability of punitive damages in negligence actions became even rarer after the Legislature 21 || amended Civil Code section 3294, to add a new requirement that the defendant's conduct not only 22 || rise to the level of malice, but that it also be despicable if it was not intentional. (See Civ. Code § 23 || 3294(c)(1); College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4™ 704, 725 ("despicable™ 24 || conduct seems to represent a new substantive limitation on punitive damages award."). 25 The party requesting exemplary damages must plead and prove the ultimate facts giving rise 26 || to liability before being entitled to recover punitive damages. Blegen v. Superior Court (1981) 125 27 || Cal.App.3d 959, 963; Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864. Conclusory allegations 28 || unsupported by ultimate facts are insufficient to support such a claim. /d. Sg DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise 1 Here, Plaintiff's claim against Defendant is based upon a garden variety negligence claim. 2 || Plaintiff's proposed leave to amend relies on the sham Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly that Magic 3 [| Mountain allegedly ordered him to submit false information to the State of California. However, as 4 || set forth in the attached July 24, 2019 Affidavit of Vincent Kevin Kelly, filed herewith, Plaintiff's 5 || allegations will be unsuccessful, because they are clearly mistated. Hence, Plaintiff has not stated 6 || sufficient fact to show that Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or in willful, wanton, and 7 || conscious disregard of Plaintiff. Since Plaintiff's punitive damages claim fails, her cause of action 8 || for willful misconduct is improper under California law. 9 i. The Proposed Amendment to the Complaint Lacks Adequate Allegations that a c 10 Corporate Officer, Director, or Managing Agent of Defendant Authorized or : i} Ratified the Alleged Wrongful Actions = 12 Plaintiff has not included any facts that would support any authorization or ratification of any > 13 || alleged wrongful action by Defendant's officers, directors or managing agents. Importantly, Civil R 14 || Code § 3294(b) provides in relevant part: 2 15 An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), 16 based upon acts of an employee . . ., unless the employer had advance A 17 knowledge of the unfitness of the employee . . . or authorized or ratified the 18 wrongful conduct . . . With respect to a corporate employer, the advance 19 knowledge. . . . authorization, [or] ratification . . . must be on the part of an 20 officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation. (Emphasis added.) 21 Managing agents are employees who “exercise substantial discretionary authority over 22 || decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.” White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 23 || 563, 573. “’[Clorporate policy’ is the general principles which guide a corporation, or rules intended 24 || to be followed consistently over time in corporate operations. A "managing agent" is one with 25 || substantial authority over decisions that set these general principles and rules. Cruz v. Home Base 26 || (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 160, 167-68. By confining liability to such specific corporate leaders, courts 27 || avoid punishing corporations for the malice of its employees, who do not reflect the corporation's 28 || “state of mind.” /d. 10 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise 1 Thus, for example, in Cruz v. Home Base supra, 83 Cal.App. 4" 160, the court held that 2 || Home Base's loss prevention supervisor did not qualify as a managing agent because the supervisor's 3 || responsibilities were confined to one single outlet of a multi-store chain, and his authority was 4 || confined to a few employees and over a narrow area of the store's multifaceted operations. /d, at 5 || 168. 6 In Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, there are no facts pled, or allegations against any officers, 7 || directors or managing agents of Defendant's corporate entities. Therefore, Defendant (a Limited 8 || Liability Corporation) cannot be held liable for punitive damages based upon the limited facts 9 || alleged in the Amended Complaint. A 10 Iv. [ a 11 || PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST PLAINTIFF N 12 The elements of fraud that will give rise to a tort action are (1) material misrepresentation by 3 13 || defendant; (2) knowledge of falsity of the statement; (3) intent to deceive or induce reliance; (4) A 14 || justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damages. Engalla v. Permanente Medical 2 15 || Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4"™ 951, 974; Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Z 16 Cal. App.4" 1807, 1816. Here, Plaintiff's claim that Magic Mountain made fraudulent statements, to < 17 || the State of California, regarding the certification of the Green Lantern ride. However, as stated 18 || above, such claim is based on an inaccurate representation of the Mr. Kelly's testimony, and will 19 [| ultimately fail. More importantly, if Plaintiff's position is believed, the alleged fraudulent statement 20 || was made to the State of California, and not to Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot allege that Magic 21 || Mountain made any statement to Plaintiff directly, on which Plaintiff relied when she chose to ride 22 || the Green Lantern ride. Hence, Plaintiff has not plead a cause of action for fraud. 23 V. 24 PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PLED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VOLUNTARY 25 UNDERTAKING 26 Plaintiff's sixth cause of action for voluntary undertaking fails because this claim 27 || independent causes of action under California law. Specifically, the voluntary undertaking doctrine 28 11 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /MEMURRER FAC Wise 1 || relates to the duty of care in a negligence cause of action, but is not an independent cause of action. 2 || City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011. 3 Moreover, even if a voluntary undertaking cause of action existed, Plaintiff has failed to 4 || alleged sufficient facts supporting a duty owed to Plaintiff, or a breach of such duty. McCarthy v. 5 || Frost (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 872, 876; Mann v. State of California (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 773, 778; 6 || Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, Antique Arts Corp. V. City of Torrance (1974) 7 || 38 Cal. App.3d 588. There is no duty for a person to come to the aid of a third party, absent a legally 8 || recognized special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. City of Santee, supra, San 9 || 211 Cal.App.3d at 1011-1012; Williams v. State of California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, 23, 27. a, 10 Plaintiff's allegations of voluntary undertaking allege that Magic Mountain breached a duty 3 11 || to identify or provide a diagnosis of a concussion in Plaintiff. (See First Amended Complaint, : 12 || Paragraphs 197-199). Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege facts that Magic Mountain had a duty of A 13 || care to provide Plaintiff with any particular medical care, or to identify a concussion. Indeed, there = 14 || are no facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint that Magic Mountain's staff had the duty to 2 15 || identify concussions or to diagnosis Plaintiff. Plaintiff cannot allege such facts because Magic 5 16 || Mountain's First Aid Staff are not permitted, under the laws of the State of California, to diagnosis < 17 || guests of any medical conditions. Moreover, Magic Mountain's First Aid personnel are not licensed 18 medical doctors, and do not have the ability offer medical equipment that would be necessary to 19 diagnosis particular medical conditions. 20 VL 21 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant hereby requests that this Court sustain its Demurrer to 23 Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Willful Misconduct, Fifth Cause of Action for Fraud, and Sixth 24 Cause of Action for Voluntary Undertaking. 23 DATED: april], 2020 26 27 8 Attorneys for Defendant, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC 12 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /DEMURRER FAC Wise 1 DECLARATION OF SANAZ CHERAZAIE 2 I, SANAZ CHERAZAIE declare: 3 I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice law in all the courts of the State of California, and 4 || am a partner in the law firm of Amaro | Baldwin LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant, MAGIC 5 {| MOUNTAIN, LLC, ("Defendant"). As such, I have personal knowledge of the files and pleadings 6 || in this matter, as well as the facts stated below. If called upon as a witness, I could and would 7 || competently testify as follows: 8 i Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff, Talia Wise's 9 || First Amended Complaint in this Action. a 10 2. Prior to filing this Demurrer, my office met and conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs 3 11 || and attempted to informally resolve this matter, but have not reached agreements regarding the 5 12 || issues presented in this Motion. 3 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing RA 14 [fis true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on April 24th, 2020, at Long Beach, $ 15 || california. S16 N= ” 2 < 17 SANAZ CHERAZAIE v 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT /MDEMURRER FAC Wise EXHIBIT “A” 1 13 14 15 16 17 N EY E Y B R R R O B B ZELNER & KARPEL DONALD E. KARPEL, ESQ. California Bar No. 61678 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 735 Encino, California 91436 Telephone: (310) 273-8444 Facsimile: (702) 273-6937 LAGOMARSINO LAW ANDRE M. LAGOMARSINO, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice CHAD D. FUSS, ESQ. California Bar No. 290415 3005 West Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 241 Henderson, Nevada 89052 T: (702) 383-2864 F: (702) 383-0065 Attomeys for Plaintiff Talia Wise, by and Through her Guardian Ad Litem, Julie Wise SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- CENTRAL DISTRICT TALIA WISE, by and through her guardian | CASE NO. BC679307 ad litem, JULIE WISE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR Plaintiffs, DAMAGES FOR: v. 1. PREMISES LIABILITY 2. NEGLIGENCE SIX FLAGS; SIX] FLAGS MAGIC 3. WILLFUL MISCONDUCT ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION: % FROPECTS LIABILITY ~ MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC; INTARIDE % Pers INCORPORATED; and DOES 4 through 6. VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING 100, inclusive, Defendants, COMES NOW Plaintiff TALIA WISE, by and through her guardian ad litem, JULIE WISE, and sues Defendants SIX FLAGS; SIX FLAGS MAGIC MOUNTAIN; SIX FLA ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC, INTARIDE LLC, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES s&s W N EG 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2 3 B R B RR B R N INTARIDE INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED and DOES 4 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE{ and complains and alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff TALIA WISE (hereinafier referred to as “Talis” or “Plaintiff”) was at times relevant to this Complaint a minor, born on May 6, 2001, and was fourteen (14) years old the time of the incident which is the subject of this amended complaint. I 2. Atall times herein mentioned, prior to July 21, 2017, Plaintiff was an individual residing in the city of Henderson, County of Clark, State of Nevada. 3. Plat is cow a divin resto the city of Temp, Ariz, Couty of Maricopa, State of Arizona. 4. Pleintif’s mother, Julie Wise, hes been appointed by the Los Angeles County] Superior Court and now is the Guardian Ad Litem for Plaintiff, a minor. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein, defendants SIX FLAGS (hercinafier referred to as “Six Flags”), officially SIX FLA ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as “Six Flags i and/or SIX FLAGS MAGIC MOUNTAIN (hereinafter referred to as “Magic Mountain”), MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC, is an amusement patk corporation based in the United States, with propestion in the US, Canada, and Mexico, It is the largest amusement park company in the world, based od the number of propertics owned, and is ranked sixth in terms of attendance. The company maintains twenty properties throughout North America including theme parks, thrill parks, parks, and family entertainment centers. Six Flags, Six Flags Entertainment, Magic Mountsin, Magic Mountain, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Six Flags Defendants”) were, | now are a business entity, form unknown, organized and existing under, and by virtue of the la: of the State of California, and that said Defendants were and are doing business in the County o 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES © eo 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Los Angeles, State of California and that said Defendants have regularly conducted business in the State of California (and throughout the United States), including (without limitation) the construction, production, assembly and/or operation of amusement parks, thrill rides, and/or eaileg coasters for use and enjoyment by the public at large. 6. INTARIDE, LLC and INTARIDE INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED were, and now are business entities, form unknown, organized and existing under, and by virtue of the| laws of the State of Maryland, and that said Defendants were and are doing business in the County] of Los Angeles, State of Califomia and that INTARIDE, LLC and INTARIDE INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED have regularly conducted business in the State of California (and throughout the United States), including (without limitation) the construction, production, assembly of roller coasters for use and enjoyment by the public at large. 7 Six Flags Defendants are located at 26101 Magic Mountain Parkway, Valencia, California 91355. 8. Six Flags Defendants have amusement parks located in California, Texas, and Georgia, among other states. According to Defendants’ website “The safety and well-being [their] guests and employees is [their] absolute highest priority and [they] invest the amount of [their] resources into [their] maintenance and safety programs”. Ironically, thi statement is positioned next to a photo of the Green Lantern attraction, which is the subject Plaintiffs injuries. 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that defendants DOES 4-100 were at all times relevant hereto employees, officers, agents, owners, subsidiaries, mgt sharcholders, partners, members and/or related entities to the other defendants named herein, Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names end capacities of defendants sued herein 2s DOES 4-100) | inclusive, and therefore suss these deftmdants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will pray leave 3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ee 00 ~ O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 of this Court to amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities when ascertained, Plitiis nforane snd believes nd thereon allege that ach of the ictiously named defendant] is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintif’s damages ad herein alleged were proximately caused by their conduct. 10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants herein was, at all times relevant to this action the managing agent, officer, agent and/or employee, and or the owner, subsidiary, managers, shareholder, partners, member, joint venturer, alter ego and/or otherwise related entity as to the other defendants named herein, and was at all timeq relevant hereto acting partly within and partly without the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the defendants herein) Be ‘oomarstt fo ified, smd methonizodt Foo ute allogenl, hoes 0 oath of. fhe imasiaing defendants. 11. This Court has jurisdiction over all of the Defendants to this action because all o the Defendants do substantial business in this state, county and district and a substantial portion o the wrongdoing alleged took place in this state, county and district. 12. The full extent of the facts linking the ficttiously designated defendants with the onc coon mealies Bate co fiewos sven oe caging, katied individual, plural, corporate, partnership, associate, or otherwise, of defendants DOES 4 through 100 is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names Plaintiff is informed, believes and alleges that each of the defendants designated herein as a DOE is negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortiously and unlawfully responsible in some manner for events and happenings herein referred to and negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortiously, unlawfully proximately caused injury and damages to Plaintiff as herein alleged. Plaintiff hereafter ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show said defendants’ true names 4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13. Atall times herein mentioned each Defendant was the actual or ostensible agent off each and all of the other Defendants and was acting within the course and scope of said agency. 14. At the time and place of events hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants, and each o them, were engaged in a joint venture and common enterprise and acting within the scope of in pursuance of the joint venture and common enterprise. 15. Defendants, and each of them, are corporations currently doing business in California, 16. Tho evects gi le 35 th eho: cose a suis cred va Ap 16,2013 while Plaintiff was on the Green Lantern roller coaster (hereinafter referred to as the “Green| Lantern”) which is located at Magic Mountain at 26101 Magic Mountain Parkway, Valencia) California 91355. 17. Atall times herein mentioned the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, were the owners and operators of Magic Mountain and the Green Lantern. 18. ACN Ses mammtiotied the Soc ogs Deimos, wid mec ooo wens 148 lessors of Magic Mountain. 19. Atall times herein mentioned the Six Flags Defeadants, and each of them, were the managers and maintainers of Magic Mountain. 20. At all times herein mentioned the persons acting as managers and maintainers of Magic Mountain where this incident occurred were doing so with the knowledge, permission consent of the Six Flags Defendants. 21. At all times herein mentioned the persons acting as managers, maintainers lessors of Magic Mountain were the agents, servants and employees of and acting within the and scope of said agency and employed by the Six Flags Defendants. 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NN O O LW a w n 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 27 2R | | Te 2. vp Bows moni irked ai Rms Tncopezaied designed, manfred, andor constructed the Green Lantern: Firs Flight roller coast a Si Flags Magic Mountain. FACTS 23. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff was a fourteen (14) year-old customer, rian vie snd pein of Ss lags Deteodens hems pa, Mage Monae nd me passenger on the Green Lantern ride operated by the Six Flags Defendants and designed manufactured, and/or constructed by Intaride LLC and Intaride International Incorporated. 24. As the ride was at its peak and “thrill” stage Plaintiff remembers her body being] shot forward, her eyes forced closed, hitting her head and her body being shot backwards. 25. Asa result, Plaintiff suffered a concussion which resulted in severe brain injuries. 26. On April 18, 2015 Plaintiff arrived at Magic Mountain and she and her friendd began riding the attractions. 27. At approximately 4:00 p.m. Plaintiff and her friends decided to ride one last ride) the Green Lantern. 28. While in line for the attraction Plaintiff asked a Six Flags Defendants employes] how long the ride was; sha was informed thatthe Green Lantoen wes about thirty (30) seconds i duration. 29. Plaintiff and her friends boarded the Green Lantern and began counting as the ride 30. As the ride was at its peak and “thrill” stage, Plaintiff remembers her body being] shot forward, her eyes forced closed, hitting her head and her body being shot backwards. 31. The next thing Plaintiff remembered were the voices of her classmates shouting, “it’s over!” 6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | | | 32. PRC en AMaly FOL SC Set” Sher exiing fhe Coté Laslecwniiraction; | she recalls asking her friend Anastasia for help down the stairs. 33. After making it down the stairs, Plaintiff blacked out and woke up laying on the ground with her head in her friend Jadori’s lap. 34. Plaintiff laid gagging and dry heaving and suffered a loss of motor skills, 35. Plaintiff lost consciousness and wok up to the sight of a medic standing over her and asking her questions. 36. ese aon phase Beatie] To isons and causing her body to be shot backwards, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries as alleged above. | 37. Asa direct and proximate result of the Green Lantern causing her body to be sho! forward, hitting her head and causing her body to oe, pet vm cmet od did suffer injuries and damages as hereinafter alleged. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PREMISES LIABILITY (against ALL Six Flags Defendants) 38. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37, inclusive, of this Complaint s3 though sct forth in full n thie cause of action. 39. On April 18, 2015, at Magic Mountain, Defendants, and each of them, proximately] caused damages to Plaintiff by negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortiously, and unlawfully: testing, controlling and operating Magic Mountain and the Green Lantern; | B. Designing, constructing and owning Magic Mountain and the Green Lantern; nm 7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES © 8 ~~ Oh Wn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 C. Instructing others regarding Magic Mountain and the Green Lantern and its use, maintenance, care and operation; D. Failing to warn, instruct, advise, protect and guard users regarding Magic Mountain and the Green Lantem,; E. Conducting themselves with reference to Magic Mountsin and the Green Lantern and to Plaintiff, 30510 caus Magic Mountain ax the Gree Lenten 1 be ina dangerous, defective zardous and unsafe condition and a concealed trap and to proximately cause injury to Plaintiff, including 4 concussion which resulted in severe brain injuries, as a result of her riding on the Green Lanters at Magic Mountain. 40. Atal times herein mentioned Defendants, and each of them, operated the Green| J ote Jossied uectie: precsiess of Defendasts” sxuammnt ork; Magia Monta. Tae roller contr vs provided by Dele fr he aor, a sf soymect of tk is sf fre 41. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, owed Plaintiff the duty of utmost care and diligence. 42. Atsaid time and place, Defendants, and each of them, proximately caused injury ta Plaintiff by breaching the highest duty of care they owed toward Plaintiff, so as to cause Plaintiff] to suffer injuries and damages. 43. At all times hercin mentioned Defendants, and each of them, as operators] constructors, and/or manufacturers of an amusement ride vehicle provided for the transport, use and enjoyment of their paying customers, business invitees and patrons, were required to provide a vehicle safe and fit for transportation and are not excused for default in this regard by any degree of care. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NN OA th a Ww o w 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ¥ 3 BR B S B R | Il 44, Atall times herein mentioned Defendants, and each of them, were lisble to Plaintiff for any damages, losses and harm proximately resulting from their failure to provide a safe and if vehicle. 45. On April 18, 2015 at Magic Mountain Defendants proximately caused injury to Plaintiff by failing to provide a safe and fit vehicle, so as to cause Plaintiff to suffer injuries and damages. 46. As a proximate result thereof, this Plaintiff sustained permanent bodily injurieq Buchs mca omic sete repens Hela hat Nak ht sil hci Sari have pain, suffering, worry and anxiety, all to PlaintifPs general damage in an amount within the jurisdiction of the Court, and according to proof. 47. As a proximate result thereof, this Plaintiff incurred, and in the fiture will incur, medical and related expenses all to Plaintiff’s damage in such amount as will be proven at trial. 48. Asa proximate result thereof; this Plaintiff in the future will lose the ability to da Plaintiff's usual work, and will have lost eaming capacity all to Plaintif’s damage in such amount as will be proven at trial. 49. Kagiso polio Phils Ses ie nan oriml laren fiormmenn] owed to Plaintiff as permitted by law: A. On the general damages. B. On the medical expenses incurred to judgment. C. On the loss of eamings to judgment. D. On property damaged and destroyed. 50. Plaintiff's mother, Julie Wise, has been appointed by the Los Angeles County] Superior Court and now is the Guardian Ad Litem for Plaintiff, a minor. nm 9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ww nN 10 11 12 13 14 15 51. Defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have known, that the Green Lantern] a dings dfn nd nut psege re sc, opin or support, inadequate foot or leg bracing to prevent riders from sliding forward and striking the interior components of the Green Lantern. 52. Ey to guests who were thrown into the Green Lantern’s interior components. 53. SUNT LE ORSCRte: we pmsl fo 1 PMG Chins; Lwin. 1 Occupational Safety and Health, Permanent Amusement Ride Unit (DOSH). 54. According to the Amusement Safety Organization, in 2011, thirty-seven (37) patrons of Six Flags complained of multiple issues associated with riding the Green Lantern attraction: cighteen (18) riders mentioned chest injuries and breathing issues; ten (10) ri complained of having their necks whipped around; five (5) riders complained of back pain; four (4) riders mentioned blacking out. See Amusement Safety Organization-Park Injury Totals. 55. In2015, the Green Lanter attraction caused eighty-cight (88) injuries. Fifty-seven (57) of those injuries were neck related, while twenty-seven (27) were shoulder related and fou (4) were black outs. See Amusement Saf ty Organization-Park Injury Totals. 56. These include, in addition to Plaintiff's injuries the following: A. ATFacebook review was authored by patron Cameron Hess on August 29, 2014. Mr. Hess attended Six Flags and experienced issues of his own with the Green} Lantern attraction. Hess stated the following “the thing that concerned me the aE Te Ghesai ride. IMO, this ride is DANGEROUS!” He continued, “This is the only ride i the park I would NOT go on, again”. He concluded with “Mark my words. something is not done to moderate the violent movements of the Green 10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1n 13 14 15 16 2 Y R B RR B R . On November 8, 2015, Six Flags patron, Jordan E. wrote a yelp revi . A YouTube Video posted on July 3, 2011, reveals many comments warming of ride, somebody will be injured, if they haven't been already”. Please note, Mr. Hess authored this review a mere eight (8) months before Plaintiffs visit to the park. Bao “Bewaro Cecon Lane by Cen Hows: Yelp Review bol Jordan E. regarding the Green Lanter attraction. In the review she states, “I would gi this no stars if I could!......As awesome and smooth as it looks from the gro it is HORRIBLE! I don't understand how this ride is even in service still. Your head bangs around, because there is no padding or support. When you spin around it is extremely uncomfortable. My mom and I both left the ride like we had been in an accident! I never get headaches, and after this ride I a horrible migraine! If you must ride this, make sure it's the last ride you go on, that way the rest of your day isn't ruined by a concussion”. See “Beware Green Lantem" by Cameron Hess and Yelp Review by Jordan E. the danger of the Green Lantern Attraction. One rider wrote, “Rode it once. Never riding it again”. Gary Ugarek wrote, “Painful, just like the movie”. Ima_Pheen wrote, “it fricking hurts your body at the turn”. Gunner 3477 wrote, “Rode Green Lantern at Magic Mountain once. I am now going to be ee] stand at the exit of Green Lantern and pass out business cards to all the riders who exif" See YouTube Comments for “Green Lanter Painful Roller Coasted POV Six Flags Magic Mountain”. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 | | D. Similar comments can be read under the posting on a YouTube video on September 8, 2011. One rider wrote, “it nxrts don't get on it”. To which another rider responded, “So true! Your shoulders, neck, and legs hurt... feels like a brain injury”. See YouTube Comments for “Green Lantem: First Flight off-ride HD Six Flags Magic Mountain”. 57. Defendants, and each of them, had the power to make, or see to it that the Green Lantern was made safe. 58. Despite being made aware of numerous incidents involving injuries to guests who were thrown into the Green Lantern’s interior components the Defendants, and each of them, continued to operate the Green Lantern in an unsafe fashion so that this Plaintiff suffered o concussion which resulted in severe brain injuries. Accordingly, punitive damages arc not only warranted but appear to be the only way to get Defendants, and each of them, to change theid unsafe practices that have put children and adults at risk for serious injury. 59. Oo Agel, 0 Dec, et is tis, a, di a Err a did know that the Green Lantern was defective and unsafe for its intended purpose. 60. Defendants, and each of them, due 10 their careless, reckless, wilful, wanton, gross and indifferent acts, and failure to act, consciously disregarded the safety of the public, including Plaintiff, causing her injuries including a concussion which resulted in severe brain injuries. 61. Defendants, and each of them, due to their careless, reckless, wilful, wanton, gross and indifferent acts, and failure to act, displayed a conscious disregard for the safety of the public, and Plaintiff by Defendants, and each of their, acts/omissions as alleged above and: A. Negligent and improper design of the subject attraction; B. The failure to adequately evaluate the performance of the subject attraction; 12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Wm = oO © 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 62. risk of serious injury to persons who used the subject attraction, the Green Lantern. 63. him execute a document stating that the Green Lantern was constructed according to the final plang . The failure to adequately test the subject attraction and identify and eliminate The flr to make ces modifications 1 te desig of te bio The distribution. of flee and niixieatiog fefomsiion. sod Rersbocs from) . Thedistribution of false and misleading information pertaining to this attraction . The failure to take into account the continuing complaints of riders that the H. The failure to properly design the ride so that guests are not thrown forward, Defendants, and each of them, prioritized their financial gain over the safety of park patrons, including Plaintiff, by making a conscious decision to not wam the public that here was g Defendants contacted Professional Engineer Vincent Kevin Kelly in order to have dangerous defects in the subject attraction and its components with respect to foreseeable occurrences that could cause serious injury to users of the attraction; traction: aber seociviog mofice fiat fhe; eign of ie sigoct mitsection wey defective and unreasonably dangerous; Defendants, and each of them, to the public, media, internet and agents/employees regarding this attraction that grossly understated misrepresented the type and risks of the attraction as well as the range of injuri that can be caused by going on the attraction, and the defects associated therein; and the safety of this attraction; Green Lantern was causing them injuries doe to lack of passenger restraints, ian To i vc fo tc Al Bae Eo interior components; dice Niewa,dig thie ssl sel hd aa ng omer ad hot bucwsie] 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 |e ct cr eA of Division 1 of the Department of Industrial Relations regulations. (See, Affidavit of Vien Kevin Kelly and June 27, 2011 Letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1, hereinafter referred to as the “June 27, 2011 Letier.™) 64. At Defendants’ request, the June 27, 2011 Letter was sent to the P sc te Divino of cSt, Depa of i Reto the State of California. | 65. Defendants needed the June 27, 2011 Letter in order to open the Green Lanter roller coaster for public use. { 66. Asaresultofthe June 27, 2011 Letter, Defendants were able to obtain the necessary] permit from Permanent Amusement Ride Division, Division of Industrial Safety, Department o Industrial Relations of the State of California in order to open the Green Lantern roller coaster for public use on July 1, 2011. 67. The statement made in the June 27, 2011 Letter that the Green Lantern was || constructed according to the final plans and Green Lantem met sll applicable design requirement set forth in subchapter 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Department of Industrial Relation || regulations is fal e. 68. Defendants knew the statements made in the June 27, 2011 Letter were false because Defendants made Vincent Kevin Kelly sign the June 27, 2011 Letter under duress. 69. By forcing Vincent Kevin Kelly to sign and submit the June 27, 2011 Letter, Defendants acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of the people that would ide the rec Lantern roller coaster, including Plaintiff because Defendants knew that the June 27, 2011 was false. Yet, Defendants used the June 27, 2011 ro the Green Lantern roller coaster to the public. 14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 70. Defendants knew or should have knows tht the Green Lantem was not built pes 1 ste imc ofthe Depa fides Rens ecu they fore Vise Kevin Kelly to sign the June 27, 2011 Letier to obtsn the permit, even though Vincent Kevin Kelly did not inspect the final construction of the Green Lantern. 71. Defendants knew that injury was probable on the Green Lantern because of the cuts oops poe Eg eo fi Gov imi yr 3 Defendants filed to remedy the issue withthe Green Lantern because Defendants relied on the June 27, 2011 Lete to bai the permit 10 un th Green Lantern when Plaintiff rode the Green Lanter on April 18, 2015. 73. Moreover, Defendants knew or should have known that the safety requirements of the Department of Industrial Relations were impossible to meet on the Green Lantem roller coasted SecA inet Fa oman 74. Defendants, and each of them, were aware of the probable consequences of thei conduct and willfully and deliberately failed to avoid these consequences. This conduct wad authorized and/or ratified by a host of Defendants, and each of their, managing agents. 75. The conduct ofthe Defednt, sc cach of thm, wes 50 vile, base, conerpiblel miserable, wretched and loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. 76. iy mowsny nf nell vont Plaines, oriifled fi pusliive hie. pili AEE m nm i mn 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 11 12 | cause of action. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (against ALL defendants) 77. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 76, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full in this 78. Under California law operators of a roller coaster are a “carrier of persons fo reward”. Gomez v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1125 (2005). “Carrier of persons for reward” men ot Be ir ft tb ce ert ee ses 2] that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill”. Cal.Civ.Code §2100. Such operators have a duty to provide a “vehicle” that is “safe and fit for the purposes to which they are put”. Cal.Civ.Code §2101. This standard requires that the operators of roller “do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under the circumstance”, y. Southern Cal. Rapid Trapsit Dist. 40 Cal. 3d, 780, 785 (1985). “Riders of roller coasters othe “hel rides sok the illusion of danger while being assured of ther actual safety. The ide expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened, but not hurt.” Gomez, 35 Cal.4th 1125, 1136 (2005). 79. At the time of this incident the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, owned, operated, maintained and controlled a theme park known as Magic Mountain in Valencia, SE Be rr Bh i nd fn epee maintained and controlled a ride known as the Green Lantern. The Green Lantern was distri by certain of the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them 80. TH Fe THR, A Piet, elope meio wpm Intaride LL.C and/or Intaride International Incorporated. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2 Ww Nn nh a 10 1 13 14 15 16 2 8 R B 8 B B | 81. All Defendants, and each of them, were responsible for the safety of the Green| Lantern. 82. The Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, were the owners and operators of Magic Mountain and the Green Lantern. 83. Atall times herein mentioned the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, were the lessors of Magic Mountain. 84. Atall times herein mentioned the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, were the] managers and maintainers of Magic Mountain. 85. All Defendants, and each of them, as owners, operators, lessors, managers) maintainers, manufacturers, sellers, and/or suppliers of Magic Mountain and the Green Lantem ride for use by the general public owed a duty to the public, and to Plaintiff in particular, to use a . & and/or supplied as such was fit for its intended use, that it complied with the qualities characteristics that the respective defendant had represented (expressly and/or implicitly) that if had, and that it was properly assembled, serviced, tested, maintained and operated. 86. AR Dalia women, wi wed dh 30 apps tis Oise East ride to look for and discover the defects at issue, and to use reasonable care to give warning of the dangerous condition of the product or of facts which made it likely to be dangerous to the consumes (such as Plaintiff), when Defendants, and each of them, had reason to know that neither consumers (including Plaintiff), nor their parent/guardian would discover the defect(s) - all of which dutieq Defendants, and each of them, failed to perform. 87. Also, because the Green Lantern ride would be dangerous if negligently made, all Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, testing and inspection of the Green Lantern ride and in the testing and inspection of any 17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 12 13 | parts made by another so that the product could be safely used in the manner and for the purpose for which it was made. ERS aL Re Green Lanter ride had, among other things, a defect that resulted in bodily injury to Plaintiff. 88. The Groen Laken sti ms deed, mamas. nd mii negligently. 89. | complaints about how painful the ride is and the potential for injury that exists. 90. mn sual besa ama ows sso psa soon 4 even if the rider closely examines and analyzes the Green Lantern attraction before they ride it the random nature of the rotations makes it impossible for the rider to protect themselves. 91. cious You Savio] agit the ond sng pala who si the Green Lantern. 92. The unpredictability that the Green Lantern provides makes it impossible for the public, and Plaintiff, to protect themselves from injury. 93. The Green Lantem’s rotations are random and based on the body weight of the Fd. Thi mean ths evn experince ad sl-bodiod oll cone ders camo prope prepare for the sudden changes in body position, which makes head trauma inevitable. 94. Once put on notice of the danger that “4th Dimension” roller coasters posed Demat, sd cof th, lk sop sig psc pon ie Pie and similarly situated from harm from “4th Dimension” roller coasters, including the more dangerous and unpredictable Green Lantern. 95. Such an injury was foreseeable as injuries frequently occur at similar amusement parks, and organizations such as the Amusement Safety Organization was formed to monitor such 18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 I I issues since injuries are inherent with roller coasters. Further, not only are injuries generally foreseeable, but injuries on the Green Lantern attraction were especially foreseeable. 96. The Amusement Safety Organization reported thirty-seven (37) instances of patron) injuries. 97. An individual violently injuring their head on the Green Lantern roller coaster was foreseeable by Defendant. 98. All Defendants breached its duty of care to Plaintiff. 99. All Defendants had a duty to provide safe and adequate roller coasters for ity patrons, including those that it targets through its school group deals and specials. 100. a i a discomfort at best, and extreme pain with possible head trauma at worst. 101. It was only a matter of time before someone like Plaintiff or similarly situated patrons received such extreme injuries that the roller coaster changed their life for the worse. 102. Ey damage for which Defendants, and each of them, is responsible. 103. At said time and place, all Defendants, and each of them, so negligently - carelessly owned, operated, maintained, controlled, designed, developed, supervised, trained, repaired and/or manufactured the Green Lantern attraction so as to proximately cause injury and damage to Plaintiff as a result of her riding on the Green Lantern. 104. As a direct and proximate result of all Defendants, and each of their, breach of the aforementioned duties Plaintiff sustained bodily injury to her person, all to Plaintiff"s damage in & sum within the jurisdiction of this Court and to be shown according to proof. 105. Asa further and proximate result of all Defendants, and each of their, breach of aforementioned duties, Plaintiff was compelled to incur expenses for ambulances, for services o 19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13 14 15 16 17 [ hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses and other professional services, medicines, x-rays and othe medical supplies and services. 106. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that further services of said nature will be required by Plaintiff for a yet to be determined period in the future, all to the damage of Plaintiff in an amount to be shown according to proof. 107. All Defendants are subject to joint and several liability for this cause of action. 108. The Six Flags Defendants contacted Professional Engineer Vincent Kevin Kelly in order to have him execute a document stating that the Green Lantern was constructed according ta the final plans and Green Lantern met all applicable design requirements set forth in subchapted 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Department of Industrial Relations regulations. (See Exhibif 1) 109. At the Six Flags Defendants’ request, the June 27, 2011 Letter was sent to the Ee in RB TEA TS FE Si Bircd Fares Relations of the State of California. (Id) 110. The Six Flags Defendants ee ed the June 27, 2011 Letter in orde to open the Green Lantern roller coaster for public use, 111. Asaresult of the June 27,2011 Letter, the Six Flags Defendants were able to obtain the necessary permit from Permanent Amusement Ride Division, Division of Industrial Safety, and the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California in order to open the Green Lanter roller coaster for public use on July 1, 2011. 112. The statement made in the June 27, 2011 Letter that the Green Lantern wee constructed according to the final plans and Green Lantern met all applicable design requirements set forth in subchapter 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Department of Industrial Relations | regulations is false. ad.) 20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 a I 113. As such, the Six Flags Defendants violated the law by opening the Green roller coaster for use by the public, including Plaintiff, when the Green Lantem roller coaster di not abide by the safety regulations set forth by the California Department of Industrial Relations, 114. Intaride LLC and Intaride International Incorporated violated the law by the Green Lantern roller coastar for use by the public, including Plaintiff, when the Green le coer st i by ky eps ts by Cli Deptnet of Industrial Relations. 115. But for the Six Flags Defendants’ violation of the law the Green Lantern would nod Ei feds toe cams cco ys cl Plaid sof Hw heey og hes Ele Lantern. Following, Plaintiff would not have been injured. 116. TE a ee Plaintiff would not have been injured. 117. The Six Flags Defendants’ violation of the law by obtaining a false certification letter in order to obtain the operating permit was a conscious disregard for Plaintiff's safety. 118, Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that in undertaking the wrongful conduct alleged the Six Flags Defendants, and each o. them, acted wrongfully, willfully, intentionally, maliciously, oppressively, and in opRscion disregard of the rights of Plaintiff at all times to further their own economic interests at the expense of the economic interests and well-being of Plaintiff. 119. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief thereon logos th shove decribed conduct of hs ix Fag Dds, ad ac oft, hs ec intentionally and wrongfully performed and was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive in nature Seni FE lo pir i cnn somo il lies mips agen 21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES a Ww A&A W N 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 | Jo 5 Dot, sn is ss 0 i atic nm i fan am mc magi lbs THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION WILLFUL MISCONDUCT (against The Six Flags Defendants) 120. Pl pets, rg nd ners ei is ene te lepio contained in paragraphs 1 through 119, inclusive, of this First Amended Complaint as though sey forth in full in this cause of action. 121. Under California law operators of a roller coaster are a “carrier of persons for reward”. Gomez v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1125 (2005). “Carrier of persons for reward” musf vo come cm md ince ok el sei, ev peo eval ecw that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill”, Cal.Civ.Code §2100, Such operators have a duty to provide a “vehicle” that is “safe and fit for the purposes to whi they are put”. Cal.Civ.Code §2101. This standard requires that the operators of roller coasters “do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under the circumstance”. Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. 40 Cal. 3d, 780, 785 (1985). “Riders of roller coasters and otheq | ‘thrill’ rides seek the illusion of danger while being assured of their actual safety, The rider expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened, but not hurt.” Gomez, 35 CaL4th 1125, 1136 (2005), 122. tle fowpiof Soden, Go 25 gn links, awl suck olism ono operated, maintained and controlled a theme park known as Magic Mountain in Valencia, California. Within the theme park the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, owned, operated, maintained and controlled a ride known as the Green Lantern. The Green Lantern was designed, developed, repaired, manufactured and distributed by certain of the Defendants, and each of them 2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 0 ~~ Oh Ww 13 14 15 123, ERE DER 41 6 of Wink mine i fei | Green Lantern. 124. The Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, were the owners and operators of] Magic Mountain and the Green Lantern. 125. Atal times herein mentioned the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, were the lessors of Magic Mountain. 126. At all times herein mentioned the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, were the managers and maintainers of Magic Mountain. 127. The Six Flags Defendants contacted Professional Engineer Vincent Kevin Kelly inf order to have him execute a document stating that the Green Lantern was constructed according ta the final plans and Green Lantern met all applicable design requirements set forth in subchapter 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Department of Industrial Relations regulations. (See, Exhibif 1) 128. At the Six Flags Defendants’ request, the June 27, 2011 Letter was sent to the Permanent Amusement Ride Division, Division of Industrial Safety, and Department of FER Relations of the State f California. 129. The Six Flags Defendants needed the June 27, 2011 Letter in order to open the Green Lanter roller coaster for public use, including use by Plaintiff. 130. Asaresult ofthe June 27,2011 Letter, the Six Flags Defendants were able to obtai the necessary permit from Permanent Amusement Ride Division, Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California in order to open the Green Lantem roller coaster for public use on July 1, 2011. 131. The statement made in the June 27, 2011 Lethe fst the Giron Lasiorn wed constructed according to the final plans and Green Lantern met all applicsble design requirements 23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2R set forth in subchapter 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Department of Industrial regulations is fal e. 132. The Six Flags Defendants knew or should have known that the statements o Vincent Kevin Kelly were false because Vincent Kevin Kelly did not construct or inspect the construction of the Green Lantern. 133. The Six Flags Defendants’ actions were oppressive, fraudulent, and malic because they knew that the statements made in the June 27, 2011 Letter were false, yet the S Flags Defendants still made Vincent Kevin Kelly sign the June 27, 2011 Letter, so that the Si Flags Defendants could obtain the necessary permit from the Department of Industrial Relati in order to open the Green Lantern roller coaster for public use. 134. Since the Six Flags Defendants knew that the Green Lanter roller coaster did no meet the safety requirements of the Department of Industrial Relations, the Six Flags Defendunty knew that serious injury was probable. 135. The Six Flags Defendants did not care whether or not the statement made in the June 27,2011 Letter that the Green Lantern was constructed according to the final plans and Green} Lantern met all applicable design requirements set forth in subchapter 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division) ofthe Deparment of dasa Relations egalions ws fla became the Six Flags Deter wanted to open the Green Lantern roller coaster for public use, including use by Plaintiff. 136. As such, the Six Flags Defendants’ actions of forcing Vincent Kevin Kelly to si and submit the June 27, 2011 te wee dn i ton i ei dpe 0 consequences. 137. Tho Six Flags Defendants knew the statements made in the Joa 27, 2011 Letied were filse because Defendants made Vincent Kevin Kelly sign the June 27, 2011 Letter unded duress, 24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES oe «ww ON wn o a L- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Plaintiff, all to her general damage in an amount which will be stated according to proof, 138. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength, end activity, injuries to her head, brain, and person, all of which said injuries have caused and continue to cause the Plaintiff great physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that said injuries will result in some permanent disability to to California C de of Civil Procedure, §425.10, which amount is in excess of Fifty Dollars ($50,000.00). 139. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff was compelled to and did employ the services of hospitals) physicians, surgeons, nurses and the like, to care for and treat her, and did incur hospital, medical, PSL RE mE A PRT Tas) that by reason of her injuries Plaintiff will necessarily incur like additional expenses for am indefinite period of time in the future the exact amount of which expenses will be stated to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §425.10. 140. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, an: each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff was prevented from attending to her usual occupation, ar Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that she will thereby be prevented attending to her usual occupation for a period of time in the future and/or will be prevented establishing a future occupation; and thereby will also sustain a loss of earning capacity, in additior to lost earnings, past, present and future; the exact amount of such losses are unknown to Plai at this time, and when said amounts are ascertained, the Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint and allege said amounts according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civi Procedure §425.10. 25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 141. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief thereon alleges that in undertaking the wrongful conduct alleged above the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, acted wrongfully, willfully, intentionally, maliciously, oppressively, and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff at all times to further their own economic interests at the expensa of the economic interests and well-being of Plaintiff. 142. Plaintiff is informed and b lieves and upon such information and belief thereon intentionally and wrongfully performed and was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive in nature towards Plaintiff, thereby warranting the assessment of exemplary and punitive damages agai the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, in amounts sufficient to punish the Six Flagg Defendants, and each of them, and set an example for others. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION et east es Sets an PRODUCTS LIABILITY - NEGLIGENCE | (against INTARIDE LLC; INTARIDE INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED) 143. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the allegatio: contained in paragraphs 1 through 142, inclusive, of this First Amended Complaint as though forth in full in this cause of action. 144, At all times mentioned herein, all Defendants and DOES 4 through 100, inclusivey and cach of them, breached their duties by negligently and carelessly constructing, building, operating, designing, owning, leasing, buying, selling, equipping, installing, inspecting, servicing, and/or advertising the Green Lantern and/or each and every component part thereof, in that same wos agile of analog od or Sok dit rats Saves enscrd juris to fle wees; conse wai bystander thereof while being used in a manner reasonably foreseeable; thereby rendering the same } 26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 8 NN OH Ww a Ww 0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 21 ii i pri yf cmon smi Bysiondes Fisfhermom; ae speed) carrier of passengers all Defendants and each of them owed to Plaintiff the highest duty of care. They breached such duty. 145. On or about April 18, 2015, Plaintiff was lawfully at Six Flags Magic Mountain. As a direct and proximate result using and/or riding the Green Lantern, Plaintiff suffered severe injuries to her per on. 146. Each of the Defendants knew the Green Lantern would be used without inspection for defects. 147. The Green Lantern was defective when Plaintiff entered said roller coaster. 148. Plaintiff used Green Lanter in the menner intended by all Defendants. 149. Plaintiff used the Green Lantem roller coaster in a manner that was foreseeable by all Defendants as involving a substantial danger not readily apparent. warnings of the danger were not given. 150. Plaintiff was a user of the Green Lantern. 151. All Defendants manufactured and/or assembled the Green Lantern. 152. All Defendants sold the right 10 use the Green Lantern. 153. All Defendants, and each of them, as owners, operators, lessons, managers maintainers, manufacturers, sellers, and/or suppliers of Magic Mountain and the Green Lantern ride for use by the general public owed a duty to the public, and to Plaintiff in particular, to reasonable care to ensure that each and every Green Laniem ride manufactured, sold, and/or supplied as such was fit for its intended use, that it complied with the qualities characteristics that the respective defendant had represented (expressly and/or implicitly) that had, and that it was properly assembled, serviced, tested, maintained and operated. nm 27 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 rr 154. AN Detbadats, su sch of thm, 30 med uty Insect the Ge Losi ride to look for and discover the defects at issue, and to use reasonable care to give warning of the dangerous condition of the product or of facts which made it likely to be dangerous to the consumer] (eit PACKET) fT Dogluiiiet, ih cuchy inf flesn, If aril. ot Kind Gls Tisha consumers (including Plaintiff), nor their parent/guardian would discover the defect(s) - all of which duties all Defendants, and each of them, failed to perform. 155. be te re Loi woke gos egy t,o Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, a | parts made by another so thst the product could be safely used in the manner and for the purpose for which it was made. All Defendants, and each of them, failed to fulfill this duty such that the Green Lantern ride had, among other things, a defect that resulted in bodily injury to Plaintiff. 156. The Green Lantern attraction was designed, manufactured, and/or maintai negligently. 157. Asadirect and proximate result of the conduct of all Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injuries to head, brain, and person, all of which said injuries have caused and continue to cause the Plainti great physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff is informed and believes thereupon alleges that said injuries will result in some permanent disability to Plaintiff, all to heq general damage in an amount which will be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, §425.10, which amount is in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). 158. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of all Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff was compelled to and did employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, rss adhe ike, © car fo nd tt ber, and dd nur hospial, medial,rofssons] 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 nN o o 2 3 B R B RR B R and incidental expenses, and Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that by oh tats Primi wit ecsmty i ional expense oe a ndeiit pcio time in the future the exact amount of which expenses will be stated according to proof, pursuang to California Code of Civil Procedure §425.10. 159. Asa direct and proximate result of the conduct of all Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff was prevented from attending to her usual occupation, and Plaintiff ig informed and believes and thereupon alleges that she will thereby be prevented from attending to her usual occupation for a period of time in the future and/or will be prevented from establi a fisture occupation; and thereby will also sustain a loss of earning capacity, in addition to earnings, past, present and- future; the exact amount of such losses are unknown to Plaintiff at time, and when said amounts are ascertained, the Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend 160. All Defendants are subject to joint and several Liability for this cause of action. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD (against The Six Flags Defendants) 161. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by this reference the all contained in paragraphs 1 through 160, inclusive, of this First Amended Complaint as though forth in full in this cause of action. 162. In July 2019, Plaintiff discovered that the Six Flags Defendants co. Professional Engineer Vincent Kevin Kelly in order to have him execute a document stating the Green Lantern was constructed according to the final plans and Green Lantern met 29 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 applicable design requirements set forth in subchapter 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Department of Industrial Relations regulations. (See, Exhibit 1.) 163. At the Six Flags Defendants’ request, the June 27, 2011 Letter was sent to Permanent Amusement Ride Division, Division of Industrial Safety, and Department of Relations of the State f California. 164. The Six Flags Defendants needed the June 27, 2011 Letter in order to open the Green Lantern roller coaster for public use. 165. Axa ost of tho Jamo 27, 2011 Latte, tho Six Flags Dotimeants wese sbio fo oben the necessary permit from Permanent Amusement Ride Division, Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California in order 10 open the Greea Lanter roller coaster for public use on July 1, 2011. 166. The statement made in the June 27, 2011 Letter that the Groen Lantern wag constructed according to the final plans and Green Lantern met all applicable design requirements set forth in subchapter 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Department of Industrial Relations regulations is fal e. 167. Te he ee 18, 2015, that the Green Lantern roller coaster was designed and manufactured to ensure patron safety by procuring the signature of Professional Engineer Vincent Kevin Kelly on a document stating that the Green Lantern was constructed according to the final plans and Green Lantern all applicable design requirements set forth in subchapter 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Department of Industrial Relations regulations. 168. The Six Flags Defendants further falsely represented to Plaintiff on April 18, 2015 iF Bi bade ein pe Vik es by having the Green Lantern open for use by Plaintiff on April 18, 2015. 30 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NN A nw a 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 169. The Six Flags Defendants’ actions were oppressive, fraudulent, and malicio because they knew that the statements made in the June 27, 2011 Letter were false, yet the Si Flags Defendants still made Vincent Kevin Kelly sign the June 27, 2011 Letter, so that the Si Flags Defendants could obtain the necessary permit from the Department of Industrial in order to open the Green Lantern roller coaster for public use. 170. The Six Flags Defendants’ actions were oppressive, fraudulent, and malicio because they did not care whether or not the statement made in the June 27, 2011 Letter that Green Lantern was constructed according to the final plans and Green Lantem met all applicab design requirements set forth in subchapter 6.2 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of the Department o: Industrial Relations regulations was false because the Six Flags Defendants wanted to open the Green Lanter roller coaster for public use. 171. The Six Flags Defendants’ actions were oppressive, frandulent, and malicious Somer some fis aici io Fiosen Tossarsennllserssmaee (illus ates i afb requirements of the Department of Industrial Relations regulations by having Vincent Kevin Kell sign the June 27, 2011 Letter and submitting the letter to the Permanent Amusement Ride Division, Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial Relations. 172. The Six Flags Defendants knew the statements made in the June 27, 2011 vee mo SF edo ke om ot ot So on 1,201 Letter under duress. 173. The Six Flags Defendants intended to defraud the public, Sa April 18, 2015, into believing the Green Lantern roller coaster was built per all applicable safety] rien becuse th Sx Flags Defendants made Vien Kevin Kelly sg the une 27, 2011 Letter and produced said Letter to the Permanent Amusement Ride Division of the Californis 31 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ¥ 8 BB 8 B B Department of Industrial Relations in order to esata meri for use by the public and Plaintiff on April 18, 2015. 174. On April 18, 2015, the Six Flags Defendants intended to induce Plaintiff into believing that the Green Lantern roller coaster was built per the safety requirements of the California Department of Industria! Relations, as shown by the fact that the Green Lanter rolled coaster was open to be used by Plaintiff on April 18, 2015. 175. At the time Plaintiff rode the Green Lanter roller coaster on April 18, 2015, she believed that the Green Lanter roller coaster was safe for her to ride. 176. Prior to riding the Green Lantern roller coaster on April 18, 2015, Plaintiff believed that she would not be injured as a result of riding the Green Lantem roller coaster. 177. On April 18, 2015, Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on the Six Flagg Defendants’ representation that the Green Lantern roller coaster was safe to ride and had been builq per the safety requirements of the California Department of Industrial Relations because the Green Lantern roller coaster was open for use by Plaintiff at the Six Flags Magic Mountain amusement park. 178. But for the Six Flags Defendants having Vincent Kevin Kelly sign the June 27, 2011 Letter, and submitting the June 27, 2011 Letter to the Permanent Amusement Ride Division, Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California] Defendants would not have obtained the permit to open the Green Lantern roller coaster. 179. But for the De or Bee ee Amusement Ride Division, Division of Industrial Safety, Department of Industrial Relations o: She Siete oC Caliiol fhoo Conon. Larosa: rollec;consor-wonic sof Myo boos spec do be wel 19) any patron, including Plaintiff, on April 18, 2015, and Plaintiff would not have ridden the Green; Lantern roller coaster and been injured. 32 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES © 0 = Oo uw a R Y R R R B B 180. As a direct and proximate resuit of the conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injuries to her head, brain, and person, all of which said injuries have cansed and continue to cause the Plaintiff great physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff is informed believes and thereupon alleges that said injuries will result in some permanent disability to Plaintiff, all to her general damage in an amount which will be stated according to proof, © Cutts Cott Cl ps 2010 set 1 co ta ee] Dollars ($50,000.00). 181. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff was compelled to and did employ the services of hospitals physicians, surgeons, nurses and the like, to care for and treat her, and did incur hospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses, and Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleged that by reason of her injuries Plainiff will necessarily incur ike additional expenses for an indefinite period of time in the fisture the exact amount of which expenses will be stated according 0 proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §425.10. 182. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff was prevented from attending to her usual occupation, and Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that she will thereby be prevented from} attending to her usual occupation for a period of time in the future and/or will be prevented from establishing a future occupation; and thereby will also sustain a loss of eaming capacity, in additi rm ed ct lb sr ha at this time, and when said amounts are ascertained, the Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint and allege said amounts according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §425.10. 33 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ow oe 10 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 183. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that in undertaking the wrongful conduct alleged above the Six Flags Defendants, and of them, acted wrongfully, willfully, intentionally, maliciously, oppressively, and in disregard of the rights of Plaintiff at all times to further their own economic interests at the of the economic interests and well-being of Plaintiff. 184. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such information and belief thereon alleges that the above-described conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, has been| intentionally and wrongfully performed and was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive in nature Bovey FIciatit, Ghasty Wacom fio amcsmtet of Sxfomptiny fe) pole etingte san the Six Flags Defendants, and each of them, in amounts sufficient to punish the Six Flagy Defendants, and each of them, and set an example for others. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING (against The Six Flags Defendants) 185. a lp as hl Hr [| contained in paragraphs 1 through 184, inclusive, of this First Amended Complaint as though se4 forth in full in this cause of action. 186. The Six Flags Defendants, by and through their agents and/or employees of the First Aid department, undertook a duty to aid Plaintiff on April 18, 2015. 187. The Six Flags Defendants, by and through their agents and/or employees of the First Aid department, knew or should have known that their aid of Plaintiff on April 18, 2015 wag necessary for Pleintiff’s p otection. 188. At the time of rendering aid to Plaintiff, the Six Flags Defendants’ employees of the First Aid department knew that Plaintiff was only fourteen (14) years old. 34 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 26 2% 189. At the time of rendering sid to Plaintiff the Six Flags Defendants’ employees of | Foe Aid depemment ne tht Pair fst iden he Green Lantem roller ouster 190. At the time of rendering aid to Plaintiff, the Six Flags Defendants’ employees of the First Aid department knew that Plaintiff was dizzy. 191. Athi tings of veallocigr aid to Fila the Six Xp Defeats” seigloyocs nf the First Aid department knew that Plaintiff was suffering from a headache. 192. At the time of rendering aid to Plaintiff, the Six Flags Defendants’ employees off the First Aid department knew that Plaintiff was nauseous, 193. At the time of rendering sid to Plaintiff, the Six Flags Defendants’ employees of the First Aid department knew that Plaintiff hit her head on the Green Lantern roller coaster, 194. Sean moi eo TI he Siem Dif coppers) the First Aid department knew that Plaintiff could not walk on her own because Plaintiff had to be transferred by wheelchair to the treatment area. 195. i mini oP i ile BSE the First Aid department should have recognized that Plaintiff was suffering from a concussi due to the Six Flags Defendants’ employees’ training and the aforementioned symptoms by Plaintiff and her friends at the time aid was rendered. 196. The Si Figs Denon, by nd Bough the ages ml ples of 1 Fist ARL open. Sled focal podiGaibic ones of Pluis fh, whic fac Follod To eatin the concussion Plaintiff had suffered o April 18, 2015. 197. The Six Flags Defendants, by and through their agents and/or employees of First Aid department, failure to identify the concussion Plaintiff suffered on April 18, 201 increased the injury to Plaintiff due to the delay in care because Plaintiff relied upon the i diagnosis of the Six Flags Defendants’ employees. 1 35 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 198. The Six Flags Defendants, by and through their agents and/or employees of First Aid department, carelessness by failing to identify the concussion suffered by Plaintiff April 18, 2015 increased the injury to Plaintiff due to the delay in care because Plaintiff rel upon the improper diagnosis of the Six Flags Defendants’ employees. 199. Plaintiff relied on the Six Flags Defendants’ employees after they undertook the Sigal pane Toe PHM fs mvs Pals veh ot it lena ikl om discharged from the Six Flags Defendants’ care. | 200. A ein is sevion neeto, fis groopl fist neni if nu BREE ou Agel 18, 2015 were the agents and/or employees of the Six Flags Defendants and were acting in the] course and scope of their employment and/or agency. Thus, the Six Flags Defendants are vicariously liable for the conduct of its employees and/or agents. 201. As adirect and proximate result of the conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, by through their agents and/or employees of the First Aid department, failure to exercise reasonab care, carelessness, recklessness, and/or negligence and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff injured in her health, strength, and activity, sustaining injuries to her bead, brain, and person, of which said injuries have caused and continue to cause the Plaintiff great physical, mental nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that sai injuries will result in some permanent disability to Plaintiff, all to her general damage in an amounf which will be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, §425.10, which amount is in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). 202. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, each of them, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff was compelled to and did employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses and the like, to care for and treat her, and did incur hospital, medi professional and incidental expenses, and Plaintiff is informed and believes and thersupon alleg 36 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 3 R O R B RB I that by reason of her injuries Plaintiff will necessarily incur like additional expenses for indefinite period of time in the future the exact amount of which expenses will be stated to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §425.10. 203. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Six Flags Defendants, each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff was prevented from attending to her usual occupation, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that she will thereby be prevented attending to her usual occupation for a period of time in the future and/or will be prevented establishing a fisture occupation; and thereby will also sustain a loss of earning capacity, in addi to lost earings, past, present and- future; the exact amount of such losses are unknown to Plai at this time, and when said amounts are ascertained, the Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to this Complaint and allege said amounts according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil] Procedure §425.10. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff TALIA WISE, by and through her guardian ad litem, JULIE] WISE pray for judgment against Defendants SIX FLAGS; SIX FLAGS MAGIC MOUNTAIN; SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC, INTARIDE LLC, INTARIDE INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED and DOES 4 through 100, inclusive] and each of them, as follows: 1. For general damages, including (without limitation) for bodily injury and emotional distress, according to proof, in an amount exceeding the unlimited jurisdiction of the Court jointly) and severally against all Defendants; 2 Medical and related expenses according to proof jointly and severally agsinst all Defendants; 3. For special (economic) damages, according to proof, in an amount exceeding the unlimited jurisdiction of the Court jointly and severally against all Defendants; 37 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 fee 4 Loss of camings and impaired eaming capacity according to proof jointly and severally against all Defendants; 5. Prejudgment interest according to proof jointly and severally against all 6. For costs of suit jointly and severally against ali Defendants; 7 For punitive damages, as shall be proven at the time of trial; 8. For trial by jury; 9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper; and DATED this 20th day of March, 2020. ZELNER & KARPEL and LAGOMARSINO LAW FR KARPEE, ESQ. (#61678) 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 735 Encino, California 91436 ANDRE M. LAGOMARSINO, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) 3005 West Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 241 Henderson, Nevada 89052 Counsel for Plaintiff 38 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES EXHIBIT 1 AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT KEVIN KELLY VINCENT KEVIN KELLY, being first duly swom deposes and says that: 1. 1am over the age of eighteen (18). I have personal lmowledge of the matters set forth berein, and I am competent to testify thereto. 2 1 curently reside at 366 Spring Oak Road, Unit 1926, Camarillo, California 93010. 3. 1smaRegistored Professions Engineer with the Stats of Califiosnéa, toenss mmmber 12494, 4. 1mm the Chisf Executive Officer of Vincent Kevin Kelly & Assoc., Inc. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is 2 true aod cozrect copy of a letter dated ime 27, 2011 addressed to Bryan Eckman, thet | signed. 6. 1 signed Exhibit | at the request of Magic Mountain, LLC in onder for Magic Mowotain, LLC t be shis to open and opemte the “Green Lantern” rofier coaster for public me. 7. signed the latter attached as Exhibit | under duress from Magic Mountain, LLC. 8. Even though the letter attached 2s Exhibit 1 states, “1 bave personally observed the comgplstad ride and cortify thu i hes bees vonstrooted according to the final plans, ed fhe tide meets all applicable design requirements set forth in subchapter 6.2 of chapter 4 of Divixion | (starting at Section 3195.1) of this title”, these sistrments are impossiblato mest and were not in fact true, 9. Kovin Kelly & Assoc., Inc. did not build or design the Green Lantern roller cosster at Six Figs Mogi Mort. 10.1 did not build or design the Green Larsen roller coaster at Six Flags Magic Moussin 11. The Green Lantem roller coester was built and designell by Intamsin. Pagelof2 12. The only construction or engineering work Kevin Kelly & Assoc, Toc. or] did in reference t the Green Lantern roller coaster was review the geological testing and prepare the foundation. 13. Any and sll docoments Kevin Kelly & Assoc., Inc. and I had refated to work performed on the Geoen Lantam roller coaster weve destroyed when my house burned down in the ‘Woalssy Fire in November 2018. I, Vincent Kevin Kelly, certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is truc and coeet 29 nial rail 9 at Camarillo, California. VINCENT KEVIN KELLY this certificate verifies only the identity of the ge EE ory evidences to be the person who sppeared Page2aof2 On 2019 before me, Kathy Hageman, Notary Public (insert name and title of the officer) parsonelly appeared el who proved to me on the haals of satisfactory svidence to bs the person(s) named) infers subscribed fo ths within instrument and acknowladged to me that ha/shaihey. the same in his/hestihelr suthorizad capacity(les), and that by his/hesthelr signatwe(s) on the instrument the pason(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person{s) acisd, exscutad the instrument. | cartify under PENALTY OF PERJURY undar the laws of the Stats of Calliomia that ths foregoing paragraph Is true and comrect. WITNESS my hand snd official seel. ER ] Exhibit 1 Miscers Kenn cy PE. CEE mn - =)=](=] & o- Adina EEE % mmemas ee- Sasa Mosic, Cs 90405 en June 27, 2011 Mr. Bryan Eckman Sate of California Parmanant Amusemant Rida Division 2100 E. Katells Avenues, Sulls 280 Anshsim, CA 82808 Re: Six Flags Magic Mountain “Green Lantem®, Manufsctier, intamin Doar Mr, Eckman: As a Professional Enginesr icensad in the Stale of California and responaibls for the construciion of the roller coasier known 8s "Gan Lantem” at Six Flags Megic Mountain, J have personally observed the completed rie and ceriify that & hes been consirucied according fo the final plans, and the ride meets all applicabls design requjemants sst forth in subchapter 8.2 of chapter 4 of Division 1 (staring st Seclion 3195.1) of this fille. Sincerely, Vincent Kevin Kelly & Associsies Vincent Kevin Kelly, P.E. oO - - S H A T T I A R I T R 8 S43 83 IU 00D ANAL = A A A C E I N D L a w ) 2 0 0 8 w i e l d H e w vTwra L i z i x "ny MHemdevs vem MU €3Y) K90\ > [ihe Gog Yumirent Wat 5 DE2-502999 edge] totelegfylobangy | Bt oped eyes 0111 F a 3 . J L m a + 5 = S O M E oo! o N N R E ‘ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 PROOF OF SERVICE California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1011, 1013, 10134, 2015.5 California Rule of Court rule 2.251 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5(b) 1 am employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 735, Encino, California 91436. On March 20, 2020, I served the foregoing document described as, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: PREMISES LIABILITY; NEGLIGENCE; WILLFUL MISCONDUCT; PRODUCTS LIABILITY - NEGILGENCE; FRAUD; VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Michael L. Amaro, Esq. Silvia Schaffer, Esq. AMARO BALDWIN LLP 180 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 850 Long Beach, California 90802 Tel: (562) 912-4157 Fax: pad 912-7919 AToness Tor at MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC Gina Bazaz, Esq. MURCHINSON & CUMMING LLP 801 S. Grand Avenue, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel: (213) 623-7400 Fax: (213) 623-6336 Email: gbasas@murchinsonlaw.com chuezo@murchisonlaw.com Attorney for Defendant, INTARIDE LLC; INTARIDE INTERNATIONAL INCOROPRATED Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq. LAGOMARSINO LAW 3005 West Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 241] Henderson, Nevada 85052 Tel: (702) 383-2864 Fax: i bi Atiomeys for Plaintiff, TALIA WISE by and through her guardian ad litem, JULIE WISE Page 1 of 2 (XX) BY MAIL. In accordance with the regular mail collection and processing practices of this business office with which am familiar, by means of which mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service at Encino, California that same date in the ordinary course of business, I placed such sealed envelopes addressed as stated above, with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing on this same date following ordinary business practices. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on March 20, 2020, at Encino, California. | Sandi Comman Sonal) (Cx dare Page 2 of 2 A M A R O | B A L D W I N L L P O 00 ~~ ON BA W N N O N RN O N RN O N N N RN se m m m e m m m m m e m e s e e o e ~ ~ ] O N hn A W N = O O 0 N Y B R E W NY -- Oo PROOF OF SERVICE Talia Wise v. Magic Mountain, LLC Case No. BC679307 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to this action. My business address is 180 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 850, Long Beach, California 90802. On April 2Y, 2020, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANT, MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SANAZ CHERAZAIE; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST El (By U.S. Mail) I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I deposited such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at Long Beach, California. O (By Facsimile) I served a true and correct copy by facsimile pursuant to C.C.P. 1013(e), calling for agreement and written confirmation of that agreement or court order, to the number(s) listed above or on attached sheet. Said transmission was reported complete and without error. O (By Personal Service) I caused to be delivered by hand by to the interested parties in this action by placing the above mentioned document(s) thereof in envelope addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on attached sheet. O (By Overnight Courier) I served the above referenced document(s) enclosed in a sealed package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in the ordinary course of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on attached sheet. O (By E-Mail) I transmitted a copy of the foregoing documents(s) via e-mail to the addressee(s). x (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Ca'ifornia that the foregoing is true and correct. O (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Ba- of this Court, at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April ZY , 2020, at Long Beach, Cali A M A R O | B A L D W I N L L P O e N N Bs W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Talia Wise v. Magic Mountain, LLC Case No. BC679307 SERVICE LIST Donald E. Karpel, Esq. ZELNER & KARPEL 16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 735 Encino, CA 91436 Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq. LAGOMARSINO LAW 3005 West Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 241 Henderson, NV 89052 Gina Bazaz, Esq. Celim E. Huezo, Esq. MURCHISON & CUMMINGS, LLP 801 South Grand Ave, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Attorneys for Plaintiff, TALIA WISE Telephone: (310) 273-8444 Fax: (323) 720-8852 Attorneys for Plaintiff, TALIA WISE (PRO HAC VICE) Telephone: (702) 383-2864 Fax: (702) 383-0065 Email: aml@]lagomarsinolaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, INTARIDE, LLC Telephone: (213)623-7400 Fax: (213)623-6336 Email: gbazaz@murchisonlaw.com chuezo@murchisonlaw.com Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation TALIAWISE VS SIX FLAGS ET AL Case Number: BC679307 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Premises Liability (e.g.slip & fall) Date Filed: 2017-10-11 Location: Chatsworth Courthouse - Department F49 Reservation Case Name: Case Number: TALIAWISE VS SIX FLAGS ET AL BC679307 Type: Status: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) RESERVED Filing Party: Magic Mountain, LLC (erroneously sued as Six Flags Magic Mountain and Six Flags Entertainment Location: Corporation) (Party Role to be determined) Chatsworth Courthouse - Department F49 Date/Time: Number of Motions: 05/11/2020 8:30 AM 1 Reservation [D: Confirmation Code: 045649327644 CR-FBHNFP3UNZRHRLRUF Fees Description Fee Qty Amount Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) 120.00 1 120.00 Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 3.30 1 3.30 TOTAL $123.30 Payment Amount: Type: $123.30 Visa Account Number: Authorization: XXXX3321 02317G Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. 3 Journal Technologies Court Portal View a Reservation Notice on COVID-19 The Court Reservation System is unavailable until further notice. During the COVID-19 pandemic and the period of time during which the court's operations are limited pursuant to the Presiding Judge's General Orders, parties will be unable to reserve hearing dates online. Civil courtrooms will vacate and continue hearing and trial dates and parties and litigants will receive notice in the mail of new dates and trial setting conferences. In the meantime, litigants may continue to electronically file documents without a CRS hearing date until further notice. For more information, please refer to the Court's Website, the General Orders issued by the Presiding Judge and Statewide Orders issued by the Chief Justice. Reservation Reservation ID: 045649327644 Reservation Type: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) Case Number: BC679307 Case Title: TALIAWISE VS SIX FLAGS ET AL Filing Party: Magic Mountain, LLC (erroneously sued as Six Flags Magic Mountain and Six Flags Entertainment Corporation) Location: Chatsworth Courthouse - Department F49 Date/Time: July 27th 2020, 8:30AM Status: RESERVED Number of Motions: 1 Reservation History Status Date Status Action Status Date Status 04/08/2020 9:25AM Rescheduled by the COURT Date: July 27th, 8:30AM Location: Chatsworth Courthouse - Department F49 Motions Recheduled: 1 03/05/2020 12:54PM Reserved by User Date: May 11th 2020, 8:30AM Location: Chatsworth Courthouse - Department F49 Motions: 1 View reservation history prior to 12/03/2018 Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved. Action $ View Receipt
