COTTRELL, et al. vs OAKLAND ATHLETICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al.

Discussion

The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint fails to state any cause of action against the Oakland A’s and Fisher.

A. Causes of Action arising from Negligence “The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are ‘(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.’” (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917 (quoting Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal. App. 4th 828, 834); see also Kesner v. Super. Ct. (Pneumo Abex, LLC) (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 1132, 1158 (“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same . . . .”).)

Generally, every person owes a duty of care and is responsible for their breach if their conduct injures another. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a).) But, with exception, “there is no duty to act to protect others from the conduct of third parties.” (Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 224, 235.)

One exception to the no-duty rule is the special relationship doctrine. Under this doctrine, “a person may have an affirmative duty to protect the victim of another’s harm if that person is in what the law calls a ‘special relationship’ with either the victim or the person who created the harm.” (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 204, 215.) “A special relationship between the defendant and the victim is one that ‘gives the victim a right to expect’ protection from the defendant . . . .” (Id. at 216 (quoting Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Super. Ct. (Rosen) (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 607, 619.)

Still, a court may limit the duty depending on the balance of several factors, such as: “the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.” (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108, 113; see also Brown, 11 Cal.5th at 217 (“The multifactor test set forth in Rowland was not designed as a freestanding means of establishing duty, but instead as a means for deciding whether to limit a duty derived from other sources.”).)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a basis to impose a duty to protect them from celebratory gunfire at the Coliseum. At the threshold, the Court notes that it is undisputed that there was a special relationship between Daniel and Defendants. (See Mem. Supp. Dem. 6:18–19 (“For the purposes of this demurrer, Defendants do not and need not contest

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV046869: COTTRELL, et al. vs OAKLAND ATHLETICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, a Limited Liability Company (Defendant) CRS# 981511074366 in Department 16 that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a special relationship . . . .”).) Accordingly, the Court proceeds to consider whether grounds exist to limit Defendants’ duty of care towards Plaintiffs. (See Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 1205, 1213 (“[T]he existence and scope of a property owner’s duty to protect against third party crime is a question of law for the court to resolve.”).)

Here, Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants owed a duty to protect them from third-party criminal acts by (1) maintaining uniformed security officers in the Coliseum and its parking lot, (2) excluding persons with firearms from the Coliseum and its parking lot, (3) providing adequate lighting in the Coliseum’s parking lot, (4) refusing access to the premises to known criminals or gang members; (5) discouraging unreasonable consumption of alcohol, and (6) ejecting persons who are drunk or disorderly. (1st Am. Compl. ¶ 26.)

The Court finds that the balance of these considerations favors limiting Defendants’ duty of care towards Plaintiffs and finding no duty to protect them from celebratory gunfire. First, Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that it was foreseeable that Daniel would be injured by celebratory gunfire at the Coliseum given the high burden of employing more security guards on the premises and the other requested measures. In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged: “Plaintiffs are informed and believe . . . that there were various other similar incidents at the Coliseum prior to the July 4, 2022, baseball game in which other patrons were severely injured by gun fire.” (Id. ¶ 27 (unnecessary capitalization removed).)

Plaintiff further alleged: “Defendants also had prior knowledge that known members of gangs and other criminals use the occasion of the Fourth of July post-game fireworks display to meet and plan to carry out criminal activities.” (Id. ¶ 28 (unnecessary capitalization removed).) Plaintiffs’ allegations are inadequate to show that it was highly foreseeable that an attendee would be injured by gunfire. (See Hanouchian v. Steele (2020) 51 Cal. App. 5th 99, 111 (“To establish heightened foreseeability for third party criminal conduct, our authorities have consistently required actual knowledge— not constructive, inferential, or knowledge by association—to impose a burdensome legal duty.”); see also Delgado, 36 Cal. 4th at 244 (“To the extent plaintiff’s special-relationshipbased claim rests upon an assertion that defendant was legally required to provide a guard or guards or to undertake any similarly burdensome measures, we initially must consider whether [] . . . plaintiff was required to demonstrate heightened foreseeability in the form of prior similar criminal incidents (or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults in the bar or its parking lot . . . .”).)

Second, and as just noted, Plaintiffs’ requested security measures are highly burdensome. (See Hanouchian, 51 Cal. App. 5th at 109 (“[E]mploying private security, permitting checks by university police, and vetting attendees—are highly burdensome measures . . . .”).)

Third, the alleged connection between Defendants’ failure to protect Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ injuries is remote. Plaintiffs have not persuasively argued that hiring further security personnel, screening and refusing access to the premises to known criminals or gang members, or any of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV046869: COTTRELL, et al. vs OAKLAND ATHLETICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, a Limited Liability Company (Defendant) CRS# 981511074366 in Department 16 other requested security measures would have prevented Daniel from suffering an injury from celebratory gunfire at the Coliseum.2

Fourth, Plaintiffs have not persuasively argued how Defendants’ conduct is morally blameworthy. As just noted, Plaintiffs have not persuasively argued how Defendants’ inaction increased the risk that Daniel would be injured from celebratory gunfire at the Coliseum.

*** The Court permits Plaintiff an opportunity to allege facts showing that it was foreseeable that Daniel would be injured by celebratory gunfire at the Coliseum because of the existence of prior similar criminal incidents or some other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury from gunfire.

B. Claims against Fisher “Ordinarily, a corporation is regarded as a legal entity, separate and distinct from its stockholders, officers and directors, with separate and distinct liabilities and obligations.” (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 523, 538.) “A corporate identity may be disregarded—the ‘corporate veil’ pierced—where an abuse of the corporate privilege justifies holding the equitable ownership of a corporation liable for the actions of the corporation.” (Id. (quoting Roman Catholic Archbishop v.

Super. Ct. (Sheffield)(1971) 15 Cal. App. 3d 405, 411).) “Under the alter ego doctrine, then, when the corporate form is used to perpetrate a fraud, circumvent a statute, or accomplish some other wrongful or inequitable purpose, the courts will ignore the corporate entity and deem the corporation’s acts to be those of the persons or organizations actually controlling the corporation, in most instances the equitable owners.” (Id.)

“In California, two conditions must be met before the alter ego doctrine will be invoked.” (Id.) “First, there must be such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its equitable owner that the separate personalities of the corporation and the shareholder do not in reality exist. Second, there must be an inequitable result if the acts in question are treated as those of the corporation alone.” (Id.) “Among the factors to be considered in applying the doctrine are commingling of funds and other assets of the two entities, the holding out by one entity that it is liable for the debts of the other, identical equitable ownership in the two entities, use of the same offices and employees, and use of one as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the other.” (Id. at 538–539 (quoting Sheffield, 15 Cal.

App. 3d at 411).) “Other factors which have been described in the case law include inadequate capitalization, disregard of corporate formalities, lack of segregation of corporate records, and identical directors and officers.” (Id. at 539.) “No one characteristic governs, but the courts must look at all the circumstances to determine whether the doctrine should be applied.” (Id.) “Alter ego is an extreme remedy, sparingly used.” (Id.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV046869: COTTRELL, et al. vs OAKLAND ATHLETICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, a Limited Liability Company (Defendant) CRS# 981511074366 in Department 16

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately allege a factual basis to disregard the Oakland A’s corporate identity. Here, Plaintiffs alleged that Fisher bought the Oakland A’s in 2005 and that the Oakland A’s have “steadily cut back on patrons’ services and security at the Coliseum.” (1st Am. Compl. ¶ 32 (unnecessary capitalization removed).) They further allege that Fisher did so “as a mechanism to justify moving the Oakland A’s from the Coliseum to a different location promoted by Mr.

Fisher.” (Id. ¶ 33 (unnecessary capitalization removed).) Further, they “are informed and believe that Mr. Fisher wrongfully and inappropriately used corporate funds in an effort to secure a new location for the Oakland A’s which left them undercapitalized and constitutes an abuse of corporate formalities.” (Id. ¶ 34.) These conclusory allegations are inadequate to show a unity of interest between the Oakland A’s and Fisher or that respecting the Oakland A’s corporate identity would produce an unjust result.

The Court permits Plaintiff an opportunity to allege further facts to support these allegations.

IV. Orders The Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint conforming with this order no later than 20 days after the Oakland A’s serve notice of entry of this order. 1 The Court refers the parties by their first names for clarity’s sake as several share a last

name. The Court intends no disrespect. 2 The Court notes that the parties’ dispute whether the alleged gunfire even occurred with

the Coliseum or the parking lot. (See Reply Supp. Mot. 2:10–11 (“The Oakland Police Department at the time opined that the bullet came from over a mile away.”).) For the sake of this discussion, the Court assumed the truth of Plaintiffs’ allegation that the bullet was fired from a rifle within either the Coliseum or its parking lot. (See 1st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 21.)

***

The Demurrer filed by ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, a Limited Liability Company on 11/12/2025 is Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Nima Aminian (Attorney) representing ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, a Limited Liability Company (Defendant) must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties, and file proof of service.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV046869: COTTRELL, et al. vs OAKLAND ATHLETICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, a Limited Liability Company (Defendant) CRS# 981511074366 in Department 16

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling? Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/ using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in) Select the Tentative Rulings Tab Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue. Select "Proceed"

You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.

Please provide this information to any opposing parties.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN- PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16 AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017 Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017