The high-stakes lawsuit filed on behalf of former adult film star Emily Willis is now hanging by a legal thread after a Santa Monica judge issued a pivotal ruling that could make or break the case.
Once a dominant name in the adult entertainment industry, Willis’ real name, Litzy Lara Banuelos, now exists in what doctors believe may be a locked-in state. Willis is fully conscious but unable to move or communicate verbally due to this neurological condition. According to court filings, the 26-year-old is now in a “vegetative” state after suffering a catastrophic cardiac arrest at Summit Malibu rehabilitation center in February 2024.
Emily Willis’ mother, Yesenia Cooper, has filed a lawsuit accusing the luxury rehab facility of dependent adult abuse, neglect, and fraudulent business practices. However, a critical blow was dealt to the case on Wednesday, June 18th.
In a stern ruling, Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young determined that Cooper has 30 days to supply additional evidence or risk seeing her claims dismissed altogether. The litigation now faces what legal experts call a demurrer challenge with a motion to strike, a procedural maneuver often used by defense attorneys when they believe a complaint is too vague, insufficient, or legally deficient to proceed.
What Did The Lawsuit State?
According to the lawsuit, Willis voluntarily checked into Summit Malibu on January 27, 2024, to seek treatment for ketamine addiction. In addition to substance dependency, she reportedly suffered from major depressive disorder, anxiety, PTSD, and debilitating side effects such as night terrors and urinary incontinence. Her mother claims the facility failed to provide adequate care and ignored key warning signs as her daughter’s condition deteriorated over the following weeks.
Then, in early February, Willis reportedly went into full cardiac arrest. CPR was administered for nearly 40 minutes before she regained a pulse, but by then, irreversible damage had already taken hold. Doctors now believe she is permanently disabled, fully paralyzed, unable to speak, and only able to move her eyes.
Cooper’s legal team alleges that Summit Malibu’s negligence led directly to this catastrophic outcome. Their complaint states:
“As a direct and proximate result of (Summit Malibu’s) neglect, abandonment, recklessness and negligence in failing to provide care and treatment for Litzy, she suffered irreversible brain damage and permanent physical and mental incapacity, pain, suffering and emotional distress, among other damages.”
But according to Judge Young, the burden of proof remains unmet.
The Burden of Specificity: Judge Demands More Than Allegations
The court has made it clear: general claims of wrongdoing won’t survive.
In their legal response, attorneys for Summit Malibu and its parent company asked the court to strike down Cooper’s claims, arguing the lawsuit lacks specificity and fails to prove Willis qualified as a “dependent adult” under California law. The defense stated that the complaint merely “proffers conclusions without specific facts,” and does not demonstrate how Summit Malibu undertook a legally binding custodial or caretaking relationship that would trigger heightened responsibilities under elder abuse statutes.
“None of these cited duties regard the basic needs of Banuelos that she would ordinarily be capable of managing without assistance,” the defense argued in filings. “The complaint only proffers conclusions… without specific facts showing the custodial or caretaking relationship.”
They further claim that Willis had refused recommendations from staff to go to urgent care prior to the cardiac arrest, a key detail that, if proven, could weaken allegations of negligence.
The clinic vehemently denies accusations of dependent adult abuse and is actively petitioning the court to strike that claim from the lawsuit.
The 30-Day Ultimatum
Now, the case hinges on a legal deadline. Judge Young has granted Cooper 30 days to amend the complaint with additional facts to establish three essential components:
- That Willis, due to her medical and mental condition, qualified as a dependent adult under state law at the time of her stay
- That Summit Malibu explicitly undertook a custodial or caretaking duty to fulfill her basic needs
- That those duties were breached in a manner consistent with dependent adult abuse or neglect
Failure to meet this standard could obliterate a central pillar of the lawsuit, with only broader negligence and business practice claims left to litigate.
