Judge Halts Lionsgate Judgment

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brock T. Hammond delayed signing a judgment in favor of Lionsgate on Friday. The pause will remain in effect until the court hears a request from Mario Rodriguez to reconsider a ruling that dismissed the studio from his lawsuit.

Rodriguez, an actor who appeared in "Boo! A Madea Halloween," filed the suit against Tyler Perry and Lionsgate. The complaint alleges sexual assault and battery. Perry's legal team argues Rodriguez filed in state court to avoid federal jurisdiction, which is available because Perry lives in Georgia and Rodriguez lives in California.

The judge noted that local appellate courts disfavor entering judgments while a motion for reconsideration is pending. Rodriguez's motion is scheduled for a hearing on February 24. Lionsgate has already submitted a proposed judgment for Hammond to sign.

Hammond dismissed Lionsgate from the case on October 22. He previously took the issues under submission after the plaintiff amended the complaint twice. The first amendment occurred on April 21, adding a cause of action for negligence. The second revision took place on July 8. Both amended complaints replaced the original filing from December 26.

In his October 22 ruling, Hammond wrote that the plaintiff did not state facts to remedy the defects in the complaint. Consequently, the court declined to grant leave to amend the claims. The dismissal covered the negligent retention claim that Lionsgate sought to have removed early in the case.

Rodriguez's attorneys filed pleadings on Wednesday asking the judge to hold off on signing any judgment until after the February 24 hearing. They argued that signing the document beforehand would prevent the court from properly addressing the motion for reconsideration. Lionsgate submitted its proposed judgment on Tuesday, according to the plaintiff's legal papers.

Perry's attorneys stated in court documents that Rodriguez and his lawyer asserted a single negligent retention claim against Lionsgate to defeat diversity jurisdiction. They described the claim as half-baked and legally deficient. Diversity jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear civil cases between residents of different states if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.