Roe v. Combs: Court Overrules Talent Agency’s Demurrer and Denies Its Motion to Strike
L.A. Super. Ct. · Case No. 26STCV18281 · Minute Order Filed Oct. 12, 2026
In the matter of Roe v. Combs, Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct.), Judge Doreen B. Boxer has overruled the demurrer of Amsel, Eisenstadt & Frazier, A Talent & Literary Agency, Inc. (“Amsel”) and denied its motion to strike. The ruling keeps the plaintiff’s claims against the agency alive in his lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs and others, and gives Amsel twenty days to answer. (ECF No. 31 at 1.)
Background
The plaintiff, who sues under the pseudonym John YH Roe, filed his complaint on June 8, 2026, against Combs, Lang Talent, Amsel and Diedre Lang. It lists eight causes of action, including childhood sexual assault, sexual battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, a Ralph Civil Rights Act claim and negligent supervision of a minor. Roe alleges that the defendants undertook to represent him in a special relationship but arranged for him to risk being isolated with adult attendees, including at an event where he became the victim of “sexual predatory behavior” by Combs. (Id. at 2.) Roe has since dismissed Lang without prejudice. (ECF No. 12.)
Amsel filed its demurrer and motion to strike on Aug. 4, arguing, among other grounds, that the complaint does not allege that a talent agent had a duty to protect its client against third-party crimes. Roe opposed and asked, in the alternative, for leave to amend. (Id.) The court heard the matter on Oct. 12 in Department 311 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, took it under submission, and ruled the same day, issuing a ruling “unchanged from the Tentative Ruling.” Jonathan Gottlieb appeared by telephone for Combs, who is not the moving party. (Id. at 1–2.)
Duty
The court held that a negligence claim “need not be based on a special relationship, where a duty in negligence is at least well pled,” and, alternatively, that a special relationship and increased risk are adequately pleaded. It cited the California Supreme Court’s holding in Brown v. USA Taekwondo that a special relationship with a minor may include a duty to protect the minor from third-party abuse. (Id. at 4.)
The court noted that neither side cited law directly applicable to talent agents and that its own research “uncovered none.” It then pointed to what it called “plentiful allegations” that Amsel and others increased the risks to Roe and assumed a duty. Among the paragraphs it quoted, the complaint alleges that Amsel continued to allow Combs “unfettered access” to its minor clients, ignored complaints about him, and knew of his “sexually deviant propensities.” (Id. at 5.) The court added that conspiracy and aiding and abetting “can be generally alleged.” (Id.)
Pseudonym and Limitations
The court rejected the argument that Roe’s anonymous filing defeats the complaint. It wrote that Roe “still has an opportunity to move for permission to continue to sue anonymously,” and that if the request is denied, the pleading must be amended to state his true name. (Id. at 5–6.)
Roe’s opposition argued that the complaint is timely, the court recounted, because the limitations period for childhood sexual assault runs 22 years from the plaintiff’s reaching the age of majority and so “cannot expire before May 2029.” (Id. at 3.) After reviewing the statutes, the court concluded that “the statutory claim is sufficiently pled.” (Id. at 7.)
Punitive Damages and Fees
Amsel argued that punitive damages must be stricken because every specific fact alleged shows only an agent acting in its role. The court found that the complaint “adequately alleges” negligence involving a probability of harm to Roe “as a child attending entertainment events,” and conduct that could be outrageous: “knowingly making arrangements for Plaintiff to risk being isolated with a known predator.” (Id. at 9.) It also held that alleging a defendant acted “with the permission and consent” of the corporate defendants is enough to plead corporate liability for punitive damages. (Id. at 8.)
On attorneys’ fees, the court wrote that “there simply is no pleading requirement for fees” and that such allegations need not be stricken because discovery may reveal a basis for recovery. (Id. at 9.)
What the Ruling Does Not Decide
A demurrer tests whether a complaint states a claim, not whether its allegations are true. The ruling makes no finding about what happened at the event the complaint describes, and it does not address the claims against Combs, who did not move. Whether Roe may continue under a pseudonym has not been decided.
What Remains
Roe is to give notice of the ruling. By oral stipulation, the case management conference set for Oct. 12 was continued to Dec. 14, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 311, with the moving party to give notice. (Id. at 9.)
Counsel and Sources
Roe is represented by Gary A. Dordick and Katrina R. Eiden; the minute order lists Vincent Hynes as appearing for the plaintiff. Source: ECF Nos. 12 and 31 on the Roe v. Combs docket.
Diddy Docket reports on public court records. Parties are presumed innocent or not liable unless proven otherwise. This is not legal advice.
- p. 1 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 1 -- "The Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) is held and argued. ... The Court takes the matter UNDER SUBMISSION. ... The Court makes a RULING on the submitted matter. ... The Court overrules the Demurrer and denies the Motion. Twenty days to answer. Plaintiff to give notice."
- p. 1 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 1 -- "For Defendant(s): Jonathan Gottlieb for SEAN COMBS (Telephonic)"
- p. 1 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 1 -- "Vincent Hynes for Plaintiff"
- p. 2 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 2 -- "On June 8, 2026, JOHN YH ROE (Plaintiff), anonymously filed a Complaint against SEAN COMBS; LANG TALENT; AMSEL EISENSTADT & FRAZIER A TALENT & LITERARY AGENCY, INC.; and DIEDRE LANG (Defendants), listing Causes of Action for:"
- p. 2 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 2 -- "Plaintiff alleges that Defendants undertook to represent Plaintiff in a special relationship, but arranged for Plaintiff to risk being isolated with adult attendees, including at an event where Plaintiff became the victim of sexual predatory behavior of Defendant SEAN COMBS."
- p. 2 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 2 -- "On August 4, 2026, AMSEL EISENSTADT & FRAZIER A TALENT & LITERARY AGENCY, INC. (Defendant) filed the Demurrer and Motion to Strike, including on grounds of insufficient allegations of Defendant’s duty to protect against third-party crimes as Plaintiff’s talent agent."
- p. 2 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 2 -- "Plaintiff opposes, contending that the allegations suffice, and alternatively requests leave to amend."
- p. 2 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 2 -- "the Court now issues the Ruling, unchanged from the Tentative Ruling."
- p. 3 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 3 -- "Plaintiff was a minor in May 2007, so the period cannot expire before May 2029, and this action, filed June 8, 2026, is well within it."
- p. 4 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 4 -- "The Negligence Claim need not be based on a special relationship, where a duty in negligence is at least well pled. ... Alternatively, a special relationship and increased risk are adequately pled."
- p. 4 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 4 -- "“Where such a special relationship exists between the defendant and a minor, the obligation to provide such protection and assistance may include a duty to protect the minor from third party abuse.” (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 220.)"
- p. 5 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 5 -- "neither side cites law directly applicable to talent agents (Reply, 5:9-10), and the Court’s independent research uncovered none."
- p. 5 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 5 -- "the Complaint contains plentiful allegations about Defendant and others increasing risks to Plaintiff, and assuming a duty under the circumstances."
- p. 5 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 5 -- "continued to allow Defendant Combs unfettered access to their minor actors and to secluded rooms, or properties with persons, including Plaintiff, where there was no oversight, chaperoning, or supervision."
- p. 5 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 5 -- "ignored complaints and reports about Defendant Combs’ well-documented conduct."
- p. 5 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 5 -- "having knowledge of Defendant Combs’ sexually deviant propensities and prior sexually predatory misconduct, Defendants … Amsel,… failed to take any preventive action"
- p. 5 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 5 -- "conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting can be generally alleged."
- pp. 5-6 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), pp. 5-6 -- "Plaintiff still has an opportunity to move for permission to continue to sue anonymously. ... If pseudonym use is denied, the pleading must be amended to state the party’s true name."
- p. 6 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 6 -- "Plaintiff’s initially complaining under a pseudonym is no basis to sustain the Demurrer."
- p. 7 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 7 -- "Given the above-referenced law, the Court determines that the statutory claim is sufficiently pled."
- p. 8 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 8 -- "Alleging that persons acted “with the permission and consent” of all defendants including corporate defendants is sufficient to plead corporate employer liability for punitive damages."
- p. 8 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 8 -- "Defendant contends that, as against Amsel, punitive damages must be stricken, because every specific fact alleged shows merely acting in a role as agent without intending to harm Plaintiff."
- p. 9 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 9 -- "the Complaint adequately alleges Defendant’s negligence involving a probability of harm to Plaintiff as a child attending entertainment events, and outrageous conduct such as knowingly making arrangements for Plaintiff to risk being isolated with a known predator."
- p. 9 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 9 -- "there simply is no pleading requirement for fees. Unsupported attorneys’ fees allegations need not be stricken pursuant to a motion to strike, since later discovery may reveal a basis for their recovery."
- p. 9 — Minute Order (Boxer, J.), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. 311, Oct. 12, 2026) (ECF No. 31), p. 9 -- "Pursuant to oral stipulation, the Case Management Conference scheduled for 10/12/2026 is continued to 12/14/2026 at 08:30 AM in Department 311 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The Moving Party shall give notice."
- — Request for Dismissal (CIV-110), Roe v. Combs et al., Case No. 26STCV18281 (L.A. Super. Ct.) (ECF No. 12) -- "[Dismissal without prejudice, complaint only, as to defendant Diedre Lang only; requested 7/21/2026, entered 7/23/2026. Read from the form; not machine-checkable.]"