Recent updates have emerged regarding the legal case against a Californian rehabilitation facility, initiated by the family of the former adult film star Emily Willis.
Emily Willis, whose real name is Litzy Lara Banuelos, withdrew from the adult film industry after participating in approximately 700 productions. She aimed to shift her focus to mainstream acting but subsequently sought treatment for a ketamine dependency at Summit Malibu in January of last year.
During her stay at the rehab center, Willis suffered a cardiac arrest, resulting in her becoming ‘permanently disabled’.
The complaint, submitted by her mother, Yesenia Lara Cooper, claims that the staff at Summit neglected Willis’ deteriorating health symptoms, which included chills, tremors, disorientation, and severe pain over several days.
Emergency services were summoned on February 3, 2024, but she was not admitted to a hospital; over a day later, she was ‘found unconscious’.
After paramedics performed nearly 40 minutes of CPR, Willis was revived but remained in a ‘vegetative coma’ for two months.
Although she eventually regained some minor movement, Willis now endures ‘irreversible brain damage’ and is mostly paralyzed.
Her family has filed a lawsuit against Summit Malibu and its parent company, Malibu Lighthouse Treatment Centers, LLC, accusing them of ‘abuse of a dependent adult, professional negligence, negligence, and fraudulent business practices’.
On June 18, the case proceeded to court for a Demurrer and Motion to Strike, with the defendants, Malibu Lighthouse Treatment Centers, contesting the legal complaint.
The Demurrer is described by the California Courts Self-Help Guide as a ‘procedural objection’ that evaluates whether the complaint, even if true, lacks the legal ground to proceed.
Citing California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, the defense argues that the lawsuit lacks the elements necessary to substantiate claims like negligence or wrongful conduct.
Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young reviewed the case arguments on Wednesday (June 18). He instructed Cooper to supply more detailed information in her elder/dependent-abuse claim against Summit Malibu.
The current complaint asserts that the center had this duty but fails to demonstrate how or when Summit formally committed to daily care or how Willis was categorized as dependent.
“Plaintiffs must allege additional facts to establish that defendants’ care rose to the level of recklessness,” Young stated.
The tentative ruling of the case stated: “The Complaint’s allegations do not establish any specific facts showing Defendants’ responsibility for meeting the basic needs of Banuelos. Instead, the Complaint alleges various conclusions regarding her dependency and the custodial relationship, or facts which simply do not show her dependency or a custodial relationship.”
As a result, the judge upheld Summit’s demurrer, preventing the lawsuit from advancing in its current form.
However, Willis’ family has been granted 30 days to submit a revised complaint, providing additional details such as how she was considered dependent and the specific responsibilities Summit assumed, to allow the case to move forward.
Failure to do so may lead to the dismissal of the case.