Pop-art illustration of King Joseph and Will Smith
โœ… Dismissed ยท May 5, 2026 ยท Demurrer sustained ยท Motion to strike granted

In a May 5, 2026 minute order, an LA Superior Court judge sustained the defendants' demurrer to the entire complaint and granted their motion to strike. A win in Will Smith's column — for now. Surfaced by @DocumentTingz.

Per People (May 8, 2026): the court found Joseph's allegation that Smith "groomed him for sexual exploitation" lacked the factual support to survive Smith's demurrer. The judge specifically ruled that the alleged Vegas hotel room intrusion does not relate to sexual misconduct by Smith, and that Joseph's belief that Smith was personally involved in the decision to terminate him is "conclusory and unsupported by any of the factual allegations mentioned in the complaint." Joseph has been asked to amend his complaint.

King Joseph v. Treyball / Will Smith

DISMISSED May 5, 2026 (with potential leave to amend). Professional violinist Brian King Joseph sued Will Smith and his management company Treyball Studios alleging wrongful termination, retaliation, and sexual harassment during his tour with Smith. Filed December 2025; demurrer sustained and motion to strike granted at the May 5 hearing.

Case No.25STCV38237
CourtL.A. Superior Court
Statusโœ… Dismissed May 5, 2026

โ˜… Docket ยท Primary Sources
Case No. 25STCV38237
๐Ÿ“‚ LA Court Case Search โ†’ ๐Ÿ“„ Read the May 5 Minute Order โ†’ ๐• @DocumentTingz โ†’
L.A. Superior Court ยท Stanley Mosk Courthouse · demurrer sustained + motion to strike granted May 5, 2026 · minute order surfaced by @DocumentTingz
Parties
Plaintiff
Brian King Joseph
Professional violinist ยท Represented by Jonathan J. Delshad (Law Offices of Jonathan J. Delshad, PC)
v.
Defendants
Treyball Studios Management & Willard Carroll Smith II
Will Smith's management company ยท Plus Will Smith individually

Brian King Joseph, a professional violinist who toured with Will Smith, filed a 15-page complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on December 30, 2025. The lawsuit names both Willard Carroll Smith II individually and Treyball Studios Management, Inc., his California management corporation.

The complaint asserts six causes of action including retaliation in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), retaliation under California Labor Code ยง1102.5, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, violations of the Bane Act (CA Civil Code ยง52.1), violations of the Ralph Act (CA Civil Code ยง51.7), and sexual harassment in violation of FEHA.

The Bane Act prohibits interference with someone's rights through threats or intimidation, while the Ralph Act covers violence or threats motivated by protected characteristics. Both are typically invoked in the most serious workplace misconduct cases. The specific factual allegations underlying these claims are detailed across the complaint's 15 pages.

  • 01Retaliation in violation of FEHA (Gov. Code ยง12940(h))
  • 02Retaliation pursuant to California Labor Code ยง1102.5 (whistleblower protection)
  • 03Wrongful termination in violation of public policy
  • 04Bane Act violation (Cal. Civ. Code ยง52.1) - interference with civil rights through threats or intimidation
  • 05Ralph Act violation (Cal. Civ. Code ยง51.7) - violence or threats motivated by protected characteristics
  • 06Sexual harassment in violation of FEHA (Gov. Code ยง12940(j))

This case comes at a delicate time for Will Smith as he continues rebuilding his public image after the 2022 Oscars slap. Joseph's invocation of the Bane and Ralph Acts, which typically involve allegations of threats or intimidation, suggests the claims go beyond routine workplace disputes. Smith has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit. The case is ongoing, with responsive pleadings expected in the coming months.