pitts

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie‘s youngest daughter, Vivienne, is seeking to drop “Pitt” from her name, according to People.

The 18-year-old filed a petition in Los Angeles County Superior Court to remove her father’s surname from her legal name, Vivienne Marcheline Jolie-Pitt. The reason for her request was listed as “personal.”

The request is a common theme among the Jolie-Pitt siblings since the couple’s marriage was formally dissolved in 2019 and divorce became finalized in 2024 after a long legal battle.

In August 2024, the court granted Shiloh’s request to drop the surname. Zahara and Maddox have both asked for the same, but their petitions are pending hearings.

Before her request, Vivienne had already informally dropped the last name. In May 2024, the youngest of six was credited as “Vivienne Jolie” on the Playbill for “The Outsiders,” a play she co-produced with her mom.

The couple wed on Aug. 14, 2014, nine years after they met while filming their movie “Mr. and Mrs. Smith.” Jolie filed for divorce in September 2016 after the couple allegedly had a physical altercation aboard a private plane, which also involved several of their children.

The Los Angeles County’s Department of Children and Family Services and the FBI investigated the alleged physical altercation between Pitt and his son Maddox. No charges were filed against Pitt.

The court has scheduled a hearing for Vivienne’s request for Nov. 2.

Paramount Skydance has prevailed in its first court move to defend its Warner Bros. Discovery merger — prompting the departure of a judge who initially had been assigned the high-profile antitrust case.

Late Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín took over the case brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general. The states’ coalition is attempting to derail Paramount’s proposed $111-billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, alleging it violates a century-old antitrust law.

Court records show U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts, based in San Jose, had initially been assigned. Early Wednesday, Paramount filed a motion requesting that Pitts step aside, citing his previous role as a labor lawyer, including for the Writers Guild of America.

The WGA joined the legal fray Tuesday by bringing its own antitrust complaint against Paramount, alleging the proposed union of two of Hollywood’s biggest studios would lead to fewer jobs and lower pay for writers.

In its motion, Paramount argued that Pitts’ past association with the Hollywood union was problematic.

“A reasonable person would question Judge Pitts’ impartiality in this case based on his prior work,” Paramount’s attorneys, led by Jeffrey Kessler, wrote in their eight-page motion.

Martínez-Olguín has been overseeing a separate lawsuit that also challenges Paramount’s merger with Warner Bros.

Five Paramount+ subscribers sued in late April to unravel the merger, claiming Paramount’s proposed consolidation of streaming services, film studios and national news networks — CBS News and CNN — would lead to higher prices and harm to consumers.

Paramount, in its motion, had requested that Martínez-Olguín preside over the state attorneys general lawsuit.

Martínez-Olguín, in an order, said she would now conduct a hearing that Pitts had scheduled for Friday to evaluate Bonta’s request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Paramount from finalizing the blockbuster transaction while the litigation is pending.

The Oakland-based judge joined the federal bench three years ago after being nominated by former President Biden. She was confirmed by the Senate in 2023 when former Vice President Kamala Harris cast a deciding vote to break a Senate deadlock.

The judge is a former immigration attorney.

Pitts, who is based in San José, also has served as a judge for three years. In December, he decided a significant case against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that barred ICE agents from making courthouse arrests.

Both sides went along with the judge switch, following a long-standing legal practice of having one judge oversee related cases.

The three lawsuits, all filed in the Northern California district, may eventually be combined. On Wednesday, Martínez-Olguín said the cases could travel together but she stopped short of consolidating them.