Robson/Safechuck/Doe Cases - Creditor/Civil Claim v/s MJ Estate [News Only]

[HIStory]

Molestation Claim Against Michael Jackson's Estate Dismissed
LOS ANGELES — May 27, 2015, 9:43 PM ET
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY AP Entertainment Writer
Associated Press
A choreographer who accused Michael Jackson of years of molestation cannot pursue his allegations against the singer's estate because he waited too long to file the legal action, a judge ruled.

Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff wrote in his ruling Tuesday that Robson's claim is untimely and should be dismissed.

Robson had previously denied the pop superstar molested him and testified in Jackson's defense at the singer's criminal trial in 2005. Robson also spoke favorably about Jackson after the singer's death in 2009.

However, Robson sued Jackson's estate in May 2013 over the molestation allegations.

Attorneys for Robson said Jackson molested him over a seven-year period. Attorneys for Jackson's estate have denied the allegations.

Robson's attorney Maryann Marzano wrote in a statement that Beckloff's ruling will be appealed, and the molestation claim will be pursued against Jackson's business entities.

Jackson estate attorney Howard Weitzman praised the ruling and noted Robson's previous testimony about Jackson.

"Mr. Robson testified under oath in a courtroom that Michael never did anything improper with him," Weitzman wrote in an email.

Marzano, however, wrote that her client was incapable of filing his legal action any sooner due to psychological damage he suffered. She also noted that Beckloff's ruling did not make any determination about whether Robson's allegations were factual.

"We are confident that when all the facts are presented in civil court, there will be no doubt left about just what kind of sexual predator Jackson was," Marzano wrote.

Robson was 5 when he met Jackson, and he spent the night at Neverland Ranch more than 20 times, sleeping in the singer's bedroom on most visits, he told jurors during the trial that ended with Jackson's acquittal.

Robson bristled at testimony by other witnesses that they had seen Jackson molest him.

"I'm very mad about it," Robson told jurors. "It's not true and they put my name through the dirt. I'm really not happy about it."

Robson, an Australian-born choreographer, has appeared on the Fox series "So You Think You Can Dance" and worked with Britney Spears and other stars.

Marzano argued at an April hearing that the seriousness of the claims being lodged against Jackson's estate warranted a full evidentiary hearing.

Jackson estate attorney Jonathan Steinsapir argued that the law doesn't allow liability for a person's actions to transfer to their estate in perpetuity, and that Robson missed his opportunity to file a claim.

Jackson died at 50 while preparing for a series of comeback concerts dubbed "This Is It." His estate benefits his mother and three children.

The pop singer died deeply in debt, but a posthumous bounce in the popularity of his music has generated hundreds of millions of dollars.

Robson filed one of the last major claims against Jackson's estate, although disputes with a former business manager, another man alleging underage sexual abuse, and the IRS remain unresolved.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...im-michael-jacksons-estate-dismissed-31352612

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson / James Safechuck Case - Creditor/civil claim against MJ Estate ( NEWS ONLY)

The Judge's full ruling: https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/16e893f7-cb8d-488b-9b09-d35207848ae7
(You can download the full document in PDF by clicking on the "Download" button.)

My summary of the judgement:

A clear judgement IMO.

So eventually, it seems Robson admitted that he cannot satisfy the requirements of Probate Code 9103 and then fully relied on equitable estoppel.

This is interesting because it did not start that way. They did argue that he was within the requirements of PC 9103 - eg. his claim that he did not know about the Estate before March 2013. It seems the Estate so fully destroyed that claim (showing his e-mail to them in 2011 etc.) that eventually they dropped that argument and every attempt to satisfy the requirements of Probate Code 9103 and they put all their eggs in the equitable estoppel basket.

Still the Judge also addresses the fact that he does not satisfy the requirements of PC 9103:

Ha, Robson caught in another lie:

I say he is caught in another lie, because in his complaint he claims that before meeting his lawyers in March 2013 he had no idea he even has the legal opportunity to sue the Estate. But apparently here in his e-mails in September 2012 he talked about an "extremely sensitive legal matter". LOL. Glad the Judge states this too:

Now to equitable estoppel:

The Judge says that based in precedent law where equitable estoppel was applied to probate cases it was always in connection with the executors' conduct, not with the alleged conduct of the deceased.

But even if we assume the Plaintiff's position is correct re. equitable estoppel - ie. that the alleged conduct of the deceased is what counts not the representative's conduct:

 

[myosotis]

Michael Jackson Update: Wade Robson Files Amended Complaint


Although Wade Robson’s creditor’s claim of sexual abuse against Michael Jackson was dismissed last month, the choreographer continues his battle against the King of Pop. He recently filed a third amended complaint against Jackson’s companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures.


Previously, a Los Angeles County judge denied Robson’s civil case against Jackson’s production companies, but Robson was given the opportunity to amend the complaint. The judge allowed the amended complaint after the third attempt. The revised complaint was submitted in March, but court records indicate that he may soon have his court hearing.

The attorneys representing Jackson’s estate are trying to get the new lawsuit dismissed. Yet, Robson’s attorney insist that the case is valid under California civil law, which states that these types of lawsuits can be brought forth “within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse.”

Shortly after Robson’s sexual abuse lawsuit against Jackson was denied, attorney Henry Gradstein, representing Robson, indicated that even though the claim was denied, he plans to carry on with the lawsuit against Jackson’s production companies.

Robson’s civil case alleges that the companies, established by Jackson as his primary business entities, are liable for the sexual abuse the Robson allegedly endure by Michael Jackson. Robson claims he worked for the companies on various projects.


Additionally, Robson claims that the companies were “alter egos for the childhood sexual abuse alleged herein.” Reportedly, Robson’s mother worked at one of the production companies, where Jackson acted as her supervisor.

However, Harry Weitzman, an attorney representing Jackson’s estate, claims that the allegations of sexual abuse are false, and therefore the civil suit should be thrown out just as the creditor’s claim was.

Jackson’s defense also indicates that Robson’s alleged claims of abuse are marked from the 1990s, whereas Robson’s employment with the production companies occurred years after the reported abuse.

Last month Weitzman stated that claims against Jackson were inappropriate, false, and were dismissed for valid reasons.


“The court’s dismissal of Wade Robson’s claim against the estate of Michael Jackson confirms that his lawsuit was inappropriately filed. Mr. Robson testified under oath in a courtroom that Michael never did anything improper with him. The estate believes his testimony was honest when his sole motivation was ‘to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'”

The hearing date for the civil case against Michael Jackson has not been announced yet, but it may occur within the next few months or within the year.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2207695/michael-jackson-update-wade-robson-files-amended-complaint/

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson / James Safechuck Case - Creditor/civil claim against MJ Estate ( NEWS ONLY)

An update about where the cases stand:

Both probate cases against MJ's Estate - the one by Robson and the one by Safechuck - have been dismissed by the Court. We do not know yet if there are/will be appeals.

Robson and Safechuck, however, both filed civil lawsuits against MJ's companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, as well. Those cases are ones still ongoing.

In Robson's case the Court decided recently that his lawsuit can survive demurrer and can go ahead in the summary judgement phase.

Safechuck only recently started to activate his civil process, so it is more at the beginning of its process than Robson's.

These are frequently asked questions in the Robson/Safechuck discussion thread so I decided to put the answer in this topic for future reference:

Is the civil case covered by the same statue of limitations. ie a matter of course for it to be dismissed?

and how does the lae allow a case against a deceased? or doesnt it unless its mj!?

No. The there are a different set of rules governing a probate case and a civil case against companies. In the probate case Probate Code 9103 was the main governing law:

9103. (a) Upon petition by a creditor or the personal
representative, the court may allow a claim to be filed after
expiration of the time for filing a claim provided in Section 9100 if
either of the following conditions is satisfied:
(1) The personal representative failed to send proper and timely
notice of administration of the estate to the creditor, and that
petition is filed within 60 days after the creditor has actual
knowledge of the administration of the estate.
(2) The creditor had no knowledge of the facts reasonably giving
rise to the existence of the claim more than 30 days prior to the
time for filing a claim as provided in Section 9100, and the petition
is filed within 60 days after the creditor has actual knowledge of
both of the following:
(A) The existence of the facts reasonably giving rise to the
existence of the claim.
(B) The administration of the estate.

Both Robson and Safechuck filed beyond the required 60 days which they basically admitted in their documents. To get around that they tried to invoke equitable estoppel. Equitable estoppel is a legal doctrine which says that a defendant cannot take advantage of his own wrongdoing. In sexual abuse cases that is usually that for example if an alleged perpetrator threatened an alleged victim or mislead him about his legal possibilities and it is because of that why the alleged victim could not file a complaint within the statutes of limitations then those statutes of limitations can be lifted for the alleged victim. Both Robson and Safechuck tried to claim that because MJ allegedly threatened them ("we both go to jail") when they were kids and they only recently discovered they were allegedly abused and that it was wrong etc, they are entitled to equitable estoppel. However, that's not how equitable estoppel works. They should have represented that they were threatened or mislead by MJ or his Estate so that they could not comply with that 60 days limitation. The 60 days period starts when the alleged victim says he already realized all elements needed for a filing: ie. that he was allegedly abused, that it was wrong and that there is an Estate. Obviously they could not claim that MJ did anything to prevent them from filing within that period since he was dead and they could not claim any such thing about the Estate as well. So the probate cases were thrown out.



In the civil cases they are suing still existing companies, so there are a different set of rules for that. The main governing law is CCP 340.1:
(In fact, they also sued MJ as a natural person but by law one cannot sue a natural person who is dead so that part is/will be thrown out for sure.)

340.1. (a) In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a
result of childhood sexual abuse, the time for commencement of the
action shall be within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains
the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff
discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological
injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by
the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later, for any of the
following actions:
(1) An action against any person for committing an act of
childhood sexual abuse.
(2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed
a duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by
that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual
abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(3) An action for liability against any person or entity where an
intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the
childhood sexual abuse which resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.
(b) (1) No action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision
(a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday.
(2) This subdivision does not apply if the person or entity knew
or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,
and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by
that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding
placement of that person in a function or environment in which
contact with children is an inherent part of that function or
environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring
counseling is not sufficient, in and of itself, to constitute a
reasonable step or reasonable safeguard.

Since "no action described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (a) may be commenced on or after the plaintiff's 26th birthday" and (a)(1) is about natural persons, the key question is whether Robson and Safechuck can comply with the highlighted (b)(2) section. Which are basically these things:

- the companies "knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent"

AND

- "failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding placement of that person in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent part of that function or environment"

Of course these requirements raise a lot of other questions as well, not only about what is a "reason to know" but also as to whether MJ's companies were in the position at all to do anything considering MJ was their sole owner and he had control over them not the other way around. For this precedent cases may help in the decision and also evidence, testimonies, depositions in summary judgement.

These are the things which are being discussed in court now.

 

[HIStory]

For the record I put it here as well from Ivy:

Jackson accuser can’t file late claim against estate, said Judge

Published on Thursday, 01 October 2015 13:25
Written by City News Service
Print
0 0 0

Michael Jackson

October 01, 2015


City News Service





A man who alleges he was sexually abused as a child by Michael Jackson cannot file a late creditor claim against the singer’s estate, according to a judge’s ruling obtained this week. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled Sept. 21 that James Safechuck’s petition is barred by the statute of limitations. He heard arguments from attorneys July 20 before taking the case under submission.



Safechuck did not file his petition for a late claim against the Jackson estate until August 2014. Safechuck said a key moment in his realization that he was a molestation victim was when he saw a May 2013 television interview with Wade Robson, who also claimed he was sexually abused by Jackson as a child. Attorneys for Jackson’s estate maintained Safechuck had 60 days thereafter to file the claim. Safechuck’s attorneys countered that he did not fully comprehend what happened until he underwent subsequent counseling and therefore was not bound by the 60-day statute.



Safechuck, 37, alleged he was abused by the King of Pop after the two appeared together in a late-1980s Pepsi commercial, when Safechuck was 10. Safechuck’s attorneys alleged in court papers that Jackson “engaged in a calculated course of conduct to lure both (Safechuck) and his parents into a false sense of security and normalcy that was far from reality.”



They claimed Jackson “was successful in his efforts to the point that (Safechuck) endured repeated acts of sexual abuse of a heinous nature and was brainwashed by the decedent into believing they were acts of love and instigated by James himself rather than the decedent.”



Safechuck alleged the pop star molested him about 100 times over four years until he reached puberty. Last year, the 33-year-old Robson, an Australian former-choreographer, also filed a petition for a late claim against the estate, alleging Jackson sexually abused abused him at a young age. According to Safechuck’s attorneys’ court papers, their client was able to gain “insight” from Robson’s claim and then obtained psychiatric help that allowed him to come forward with details of the “loathsome nature of his childhood sexual relationship with (Jackson), the effects of which he has buried for decades.”



Beckloff also denied Robson’s petition. Both Robson and Safechuck have also filed civil suits against business entities controlled by Jackson before the singer’s June 25, 2009, death at age 50. In a separate ruling on Sept. 21, Beckloff denied a motion by the attorneys representing the Jackson companies to dismiss Robson's civil suit.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson / James Safechuck Case - Creditor/civil claim against MJ Estate ( NEWS ONLY)

Update:

On August 23, 2016 the Court sustained the Estate's demurrer in the James Safechuck civil case with a leave to amend. This means that as it is currently Safechuck's complaint would be thrown out, but he gets another chance to amend his complaint to meet the requirements of moving forward.

Reason why the demurrer is sustained is that Safechuck couldn't even establish that the companies he is suing owed him a duty of care. As opposed to Robson he wasn't even employed by them. Only after a duty of care could be established they could even move on to discuss whether he meets the other requirements of CCP 340.1 - specifically the three elements of (b)(2).

Full ruling: https://www.scribd.com/document/322935579/Safechuck-Demurrer-Ruling

 

[HIStory]

Re: Wade Robson / James Safechuck Case - Creditor/civil claim against MJ Estate ( NEWS ONLY)

Robson civil case update:

Robson's mental exam took pace on August 22, 2016. Approximately one month is needed for its evaluation.

Robson's family members will be deposed in September 2016, Robson himself some time in October.

Summary judgement motions are expected in November 2016.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Robson / Safechuck / Doe Cases - Creditor/civil claim against MJ Estate ( NEWS ONLY)

what's crazy to me is no matter how ridiculous something is (like this) how much the justice system still has to entertain it... entertain in with the peoples tax dollars... smh