Adelaja v. Guillen

Background

Abimbola Adelaja alleged that Jerome Guillen and Jeremy Gallaher invited him to California for a concert and that, after the concert, Gallaher threw a large plastic necklace at him. The necklace allegedly struck Adelaja’s left eye and caused permanent optic-nerve damage and visual impairment. Adelaja also alleged emotional distress and claimed that Guillen knew Gallaher could become violent when intoxicated.

The complaint asserted claims for assault and battery against Gallaher; intentional infliction of emotional distress against Gallaher; negligence against both defendants; premises liability against Guillen; and fraudulent transfer against both defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the emotional-distress claim, the negligence and premises-liability claims against Guillen, and the fraudulent-transfer claims against both defendants.

The court noted that this was the second case arising from the alleged incident. Adelaja had voluntarily dismissed the earlier state-court lawsuit without prejudice before the court issued a written decision on an earlier motion to dismiss. The court evaluated the current complaint on its own merits but treated it as functionally an amended complaint when deciding whether to allow amendment.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed if it does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court assumes the complaint’s factual allegations are true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but it does not accept merely conclusory allegations. If a claim is dismissed, the court generally allows amendment unless additional facts could not cure the problem.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

The court denied the motion to dismiss this claim against Gallaher. Adelaja alleged permanent and irreversible eye damage and a range of continuing symptoms, including anxiety, depression, fear, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of hair, and difficulty sleeping. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to allege severe emotional distress.

Premises liability

The court denied the motion to dismiss the premises-liability claim against Guillen. The court explained that a premises-liability claim requires a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and injury caused by the breach. Adelaja alleged that Guillen invited him to stay at the house, knew of Gallaher’s history of violence when intoxicated, observed Gallaher becoming increasingly dangerous, asked Adelaja not to leave, and failed to warn or protect him.

The court held that California’s social-host immunity rule did not require dismissal at this stage because Adelaja’s theory was not simply that Guillen provided alcohol. The alleged duty could instead arise independently from Guillen’s role as the possessor of the property and the alleged special relationship between a landowner and an invited guest.

Negligence

The court granted the motion to dismiss the negligence claim against Guillen without leave to amend. Adelaja relied on a negligent-undertaking theory, alleging that Guillen voluntarily undertook to protect him from Gallaher. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Guillen failed to use reasonable care in attempting to keep Gallaher out of the room. The fact that Gallaher ultimately entered the room and allegedly assaulted Adelaja did not, by itself, plausibly show negligent performance.

The court also concluded that amendment would be futile because Adelaja did not identify additional facts he would add and the current complaint was functionally an amended complaint.

Fraudulent transfer

The court granted the motion to dismiss the fraudulent-transfer claim against Guillen and Gallaher and denied leave to amend at that time. Adelaja alleged that Gallaher transferred assets to Guillen to hinder collection of any judgment, but the court found those allegations conclusory.

The court applied the heightened pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity. The complaint did not identify the transferred assets, the dates or details of the transfers, or facts supporting the alleged indicators of fraudulent intent. The court stated that if Adelaja later learns specific facts supporting such a claim, he may seek leave to amend.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Gallaher and the premises-liability claim against Guillen. It granted the motion to dismiss the negligence claim against Guillen without leave to amend and granted the motion to dismiss the fraudulent-transfer claim against both defendants, denying leave to amend at that time. The court also scheduled an initial case-management conference for November 21, 2025.