LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - A man who took up Brazilian jiu-jitsu at age 49 and was injured sparring with another man can’t sue the national organization affiliated with the studio where he was hurt, a California appeals court ruled.
Ramon Pereda argued Atos Jiu Jitsu, founded by Brazilian martial-arts champion Andre Galvao, had sufficient control over a Long Beach studio called the League to be held liable for his injuries. But California’s Second Appellate District, in a Nov. 23 decision, disagreed.
A trial judge was justified in dismissing Pereda’s lawsuit, the court ruled. While Atos provided curriculum and a code of ethics for its affiliates, the court ruled, it had no ownership stake or control over the day-to-day operations of the League. The court also rejected Pereda’s argument he was denied due process, saying he had plenty of opportunity to present his case before it was dismissed.
The court described Pereda as “a wrestling celebrity at his high school” who kickboxed, knew judo and decided in the summer of 2017 to try Brazilian jiu-jitsu after talking to a neighbor who was an instructor. During a sparring session he was put into a chokehold, a standard maneuver in Brazilian jiu-jitsu, and considered tapping out but was saved when the buzzer sounded, ending the match. Afterwards he complained of shortness of breath, a limp and some confusion.
Pereda sued the League, his sparring partner and Atos, claiming Atos was liable for failing to supervise or monitor the activities of the League. Atos argued Pereda assumed the risk of injury and nothing it did increased that risk. Pereda’s lawyers responded that Atos and Galvao were liable through the doctrine of “ostensible authority.”
After a hearing, the trial court granted Atos summary judgment, finding that Atos and the League had an “ordinary franchise relationship” where the franchisor is liable only if it is involved in the specific acts that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
Pereda appealed, saying he was denied due process because he, not the defendants, raised the question of whether Atos and Galvao had authority over the League studio. That didn’t matter, the appeals court ruled. Since he raised the issue himself and the defendants submitted evidence to refute the claim, there was no way he was denied notice or the opportunity to be heard on the question.
Pereda further argued he had additional evidence he would have presented had the case survived summary judgment.
“We reject this argument,” the appeals court said. “For starters, due process guarantees an opportunity to be heard—not multiple opportunities to be heard.”
On the question of ostensible agency – whether Atos exercised enough control for the League to be considered its agent – the appeals court noted that franchisors have been held liable when they supervise a franchise closely enough to know they had violated a statute and did nothing to stop it.
In this case, however, Pereda failed to prove he could reasonably have believed Atos controlled the day-to-day operations of the League. It didn’t matter that the studio had an Atos banner, or used the organization’s website, the court ruled.