By Samuel López | USA Herald

LOS ANGELES — Model and television personality Amber Rose has sued the operator of an exclusive Beverly Hills social club and a design company, alleging that an oversized holiday ornament fell from above her booth, struck her in the head and sent her to Cedars-Sinai for emergency medical treatment.

Rose, whose legal name is Amber Rose Levonchuck, filed the negligence-based lawsuit Tuesday, July 21, in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The complaint names Moxie Restaurant Ventures LLC, which operates the members-only Gravitas social club, and Celios Designs, the company allegedly responsible for installing the holiday display.

According to the complaint, Rose was celebrating New Year’s Eve at Gravitas on Dec. 31, 2024, when she was seated beneath several “solid, oversized decorative spheres.”

One of those spheres was suspended directly above her booth.

“Without warning, the suspended sphere detached and fell onto Plaintiff’s head,” the complaint alleges. Rose maintains that she neither touched the decoration nor exercised any control over its mounting system and did nothing to cause or contribute to its fall.

Rose reportedly felt dazed immediately after the impact. The complaint alleges that she experienced a brief loss of consciousness or altered awareness, followed by headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, nausea, confusion and neck pain.

She was taken to Cedars-Sinai for an emergency evaluation, where the complaint says she was diagnosed with a concussion, cervical tenderness and other head-and neck-related injuries.

The lawsuit alleges that Rose’s medical problems did not end with the initial emergency-room visit. She claims to have continued experiencing headaches, vertigo, balance problems, visual disturbances, neck stiffness and difficulty with memory, concentration and information processing.

Rose also reports disrupted sleep, fatigue, anxiety, irritability, emotional distress and a reduced tolerance for ordinary activities. According to the complaint, the lingering symptoms have interfered with her ability to work, drive and perform routine daily tasks.

At the center of the lawsuit is a straightforward but potentially significant question: How did a large decorative object suspended above seated patrons become detached?

Rose alleges that the sphere created “a concealed and unreasonable risk of serious injury” unless it was competently designed, attached, secured, tested, inspected and maintained. The complaint also raises the question of whether the decoration should have been equipped with a secondary restraint capable of preventing it from falling if the primary mounting system failed.

Under California Civil Code Section 1714, individuals and businesses are generally responsible for injuries caused by a failure to exercise ordinary care in managing their property or activities. In a premises-liability case, however, an injury by itself does not automatically establish liability.

Rose will ultimately have to prove that one or both defendants owed her a duty of care, breached that duty and caused the injuries and damages identified in her complaint.

For Moxie, the litigation will likely focus on the club operator’s control over the premises, its role in approving the decorations and whether it conducted reasonable inspections before allowing guests to sit beneath them.

For Celios, the central issues may involve the design and installation of the display: who selected the mounting hardware, whether the support system was appropriate for the sphere’s weight, how the installation was tested and whether an independent backup cable or restraint should have been used.

The defendants may dispute who controlled the decoration at different stages, whether the alleged defect could have been discovered through a reasonable inspection and whether another person or event caused the ornament to detach. They may also challenge the nature, duration and medical cause of Rose’s reported symptoms.

The fact that the sphere allegedly fell without being touched may nevertheless become important. California recognizes the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitur—Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”—which may permit an inference of negligence when an accident ordinarily would not happen without negligence and the injured person did not cause it.

Under California Evidence Code Section 646, the doctrine affects the burden of producing evidence but does not guarantee a plaintiff’s victory. The presence of multiple defendants could also complicate the question of who had sufficient control over the sphere and its mounting system.

Discovery could therefore become decisive. Attorneys are likely to seek installation plans, contracts, invoices, inspection records, photographs, surveillance video and communications between Gravitas, Moxie and Celios.

The parties may also examine the sphere’s weight and composition, the type of fasteners and ceiling anchors used, how long the display had been in place, whether employees noticed any movement or loosening and whether the failed hardware was preserved after the incident.

Rose is seeking past and future economic damages, including compensation for medical evaluations, rehabilitation, therapy, assistive care, household services, lost earnings and diminished earning capacity.

She also seeks noneconomic damages for physical pain, mental suffering, emotional distress, inconvenience, anxiety and loss of enjoyment of life. The complaint does not assign a specific dollar amount to those damages, leaving the amount to be determined through evidence, settlement negotiations or trial.

Claims for diminished earning capacity can become especially contested when a plaintiff works in entertainment or another project-based profession. Rose will likely need evidence demonstrating how the alleged injuries affected her ability to accept, complete or perform future work—not merely evidence of what she earned before the incident.

Medical causation may be equally important. The parties could rely on neurologists, vestibular specialists, rehabilitation professionals and vocational or economic experts to evaluate whether Rose’s reported symptoms are consistent with the impact and whether any limitations are likely to continue.

Rose filed the lawsuit within California’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims under Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1.

The complaint currently presents Rose’s account of the incident. The defendants’ defenses have not been adjudicated, and no court has determined that either company acted negligently.

Rose’s legal team said it intends to pursue the case with “discipline, professionalism, and respect for the judicial process.”

For the defendants, the case may ultimately turn on a trail of engineering decisions, inspection practices and safety responsibilities. For Rose, it begins with a far more basic expectation shared by every restaurant and nightclub guest: that a heavy object suspended above a seat will remain securely overhead.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Samuel López is a Senior Legal Analyst, investigative journalist and legal researcher with more than two decades of experience analyzing litigation, court records and complex legal disputes.

Stay Ahead of the Story

👉 Follow us on X: https://x.com/RealUSAHerald