Modification: Brown v. USA Taekwondo

YAZMIN BROWN et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants.

v.

USA TAEKWONDO et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

No. B280550

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC599321)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Seven

Filed November 4, 2019

THE COURT:

The above-entitled opinion filed on October 8, 2019 is modified as follows:

On pages 35 to 36, delete the text of footnote 11 and replace it with the following.

On September 12, 2018 plaintiffs requested judicial notice of two May 21, 2018 congressional staff memoranda and a videotape of a May 23, 2018 congressional hearing concerning the sexual abuse of athletes in Olympic sports, including taekwondo. We denied plaintiffs' request without prejudice because it failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 8.252(a)(2). On August 26, 2019 plaintiffs renewed their request for judicial notice of the same information. We deny plaintiffs' renewed request for judicial notice on the basis the documents and videotape are not necessary for our resolution of the appeal because USOC's knowledge of sexual abuse by Olympic coaches is not sufficient to create a special relationship with taekwondo coaches or athletes. (See Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 748, fn. 6 [judicial notice denied where "the requests present no issue for which judicial notice of these items is necessary, helpful, or relevant"]; Appel v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 329, 342, fn. 6 [judicial notice denied where materials are not "relevant or necessary" to the court's analysis].) Nor is the testimony at the hearing or asserted Congressional "ire" over the failure of USOC to protect Olympic athletes relevant to whether we grant leave to amend to allege a special relationship between USOC and Gitelman or plaintiffs. As discussed, USOC's ability to regulate Gitelman's conduct was principally through its control of USAT as the national governing body for the sport of taekwondo. Although USOC gained additional authority as a result of the 2018 amendment of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (36 U.S.C. § 220501 et seq.), we need not reach the scope of USOC's additional authority because it is not relevant to USOC's power to prevent Gitelman's alleged sexual abuse during the period from 2007 to 2013. We therefore deny USOC's request for leave to amend to allege USOC owed a duty to plaintiffs. We also deny USOC's and USAT's motions to strike the portions of plaintiffs' reply brief that reference the documents attached to their request for judicial notice. Instead, we have not considered the cited May 2018 congressional testimony in our analysis.

Appellants' petition for rehearing is denied.

There is no change in the judgment.

PERLUSS, P. J.

ZELON, J.

FEUER, J.