By Jenna Nelson
Actress Ashley Johnson re-entered the media spotlight this year due to her hit video game, “The Last of Us,” being remade into an HBO series. Amongst the praise for the show and her role in the series, details of her relationship with media producer Brian Foster emerged. [1] The fallout of their relationship came to a head when Johnson and six other plaintiffs filed a complaint against Foster in the California Superior Court for his threats, violence, and abuse (full complaint available here). The exposé-esque filing raises questions surrounding the number of parties in the lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs
Each of the seven plaintiffs had different relationships with Foster, diverse causes of action against Foster, and separate sets of facts related to their case. The plaintiffs include Johnson, Johnson’s sister, and five of Foster’s friends and acquaintances. The complaint has eight causes of action, each related to Foster’s inappropriate behavior. However, not all defendants claim each one. This brings up a key question: how and why are these plaintiffs filing one complaint when they each assert different causes of action that emerge from separate events?
They likely used the logic of permissive joinders, which allows plaintiffs to “join in one action… if they assert any right to relief… with respect to… the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” [2] The “series of transactions or occurrences” in this case is Foster’s pattern of abusive behavior. But, it is still unclear why the plaintiffs filed under one complaint. What are the pros and cons of the plaintiffs filing together?
The Defendants
The defendants in this case are Brian Foster and Does 1 through 20. These unknown parties are responsible for the damages in this case as a “principal, agent, co-conspirator, aider and abettor, or alter ego.”
This is a large number of potential defendants and a diverse set of roles these unknown parties may have played. For example, a legal alter ego refers to a corporation used to do personal business. [3] When reading the facts of the case, it is challenging to identify people other than Foster who are liable. It seems nearly impossible to identify that many defendants within discovery. Why did the plaintiffs include so many Does in their complaint?
[1] Abbey White, ‘The Last of Us’ Star Ashley Johnson and Six Other Women Allege Sexual, Physical Abuse by Brian Foster, The Hollywood Reporter (October 6, 2023), https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/last-of-us-star-ashley-johnson-6-women-allege-abuse-brian-foster-1235611230/.
[2] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 20(a)(1).
[3] Alter Ego Definition, Black’s Law Dictionary 11th ed. 2019.
Great job finding an example of a recent and relevant case having multiple plaintiffs with differing complaints in one case. One of the benefits of combining these cases may be to overwhelm the jury with evidence against the defendant to encourage a guilty verdict. I recently heard someone say "If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If you have nothing on your side, pound on the table." Im not saying whether the plaintiffs have facts or laws on their side or not, but by combining these claims into one large "story", they sure are pounding on the table loudly enough to get the attention of the jury.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a strategy, Michael. Overwhelming the opposition can work. However, it can also go bad. I am reminded of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company and the infamous Ford Pinto explosive car case, memorialized by the epic comedy "Top Secret." Ford's strategy was to overwhelm the plaintiffs with millions of documents requested in discovery, trainloads from what I heard. It backfired catastrophically on Ford to the tune of $128 Million dollars, the largest settlement in history at the time.
DeleteGreat post Jenna! I agree with Michael that multiple accusers definitely makes a case more powerful. In reading the complaint it would seem that they are tying the multiple plaintiffs together because it shows a pattern of behavior on his part, and the harassment of her friends and family were all part of the same goal to control and perpetuate violence against Ashley Johnson.
ReplyDeleteFor the potential Doe Defendants they may be trying to go after people that knew about the abuse and enabled him, which maybe they hope to learn in discovery? It makes me think of the actress that just sued Harvey Weinstein and also her talent agency, Disney, and MGM for their part in enabling and covering up for him. I'll leave my personal opinion out of it except to say I hope she has a plausible case and prevails :) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/04/business/media/julia-ormond-harvey-weinstein-lawsuit.html
Sorry, it is *Miramax* not MGM
DeleteI agree with the comments above. The plaintiffs filing together presents a 'strength in numbers' situation and a pattern against the defendant. I also wonder if a joint complaint encourages others to come forward to seek justice. My other thought about the plaintiffs filing together is shared resources: legal counsel, cost, etc.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Marci about the Does. That's the first thing I thought of when I read it. It takes one person to stand up sometimes. The Does may have experienced the bystander affect which is no excuse to allow someone else to be prayed upon. I just hope they did not partake in it.
ReplyDeleteMultiple accusers makes sense. Based off of what I've seen, a person in some position of power usually has multiple victims. If he assaulted or harassed one person, he probably did it to more.
It makes some sense to me why they combined their complaints and why there are additional unnamed defendants (Does' 1-20). In the beginning of the complaint it introduces a key element and factor in this case, see (2) "Coercive Control." This is a special kind of evil that is often seen in domestic violence, sexual harassments, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gender violence.
ReplyDeleteBecause this is California there are additional laws that play into why these Plaintiffs decided to combined their complaints. I'll start by addressing cause of action 7:
1- Ralph's Civil Rights Act. The Ralph Act states that all persons within the state of California have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of actual or perceived political affiliation, position in a labor dispute or on account of any characteristic which also includes Sex (gender).
2- That leads to the 6th cause of action, Gender violence.
3- Cause of action #8, Interference with Civil Rights. And Finally;
4- The 2nd cause of action, Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I am focusing on these cause of actions because all of the Plaintiffs are alleging these against Foster and Doe's 1-20.
I think that a case like this could only be brought in California because of laws and Constitutional rights that are found only there. I could be wrong but that makes some sense to me. The other reason has to do with his celebrity. I can imagine that sexual harassment along with some of the causes of actions alleged in this complaint, although not unique in and of themselves, can be a major issue within the entertainment industry. For example, confronting a coworker about their behavior who holds tremendous power and influence as well as fame and money, I imagine could be potentially career ending. Add to that the complicity of the industry, other coworkers and actors. I imagine that if the 20 Doe's are named in the discovery phase, it shouldn't surprise anyone if they are executive producers, other famous celebrities, and other major players in the entertainment business.
My point is there are more pros than cons because it would be easier to prove these allegations if those allegations were coming from more than one Plaintiff and that by showing that pattern of behavior, not just in a domestic capacity but in ever aspect of Mr. Foster's life, it gives more validity to each individual victim, especially the main complainant Ashley Johnson. That's just my take.
By the way I have zero clue who Brian Foster is and unless the complaint mentioned Ms. Johnson's past projects I'd never have recognized her. Growing Pains was one of my favorite shows when I was a kid. 😉
DeleteThe question I have is if the fact pattern is different, how were the 7 plaintiffs granted joinder. Likewise, as a defense attorney one of my first strategies would be to severe the plaintiffs and make them fight on their own.
ReplyDelete