Latest on MJJC

The Estate vs HBO

I'm not familiar with court stuff but it doesn't even seem like it has got anywhere yet. The judge obviously not in a rush!

While the Agreement may establish the Los Angeles County Superior Court as the only venue that has the authority to resolve a dispute about which arbitrator to select when there is a continued conflict between the parties and their surrogates on that point, the plain language of the Arbitration Provision does not support a finding that the parties intended that court to be the only forum for other disputes. The parties’ instant disagreement is not about who should serve as the arbitrator, but rather whether arbitration should be compelled in the first instance. Therefore, the Court would deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
Click to expand...

Because the Court has not yet decided whether it or the arbitrator will decide arbitrability, it will hold off from addressing the arguments in regards to the arbitrability issue.
Click to expand...

https://www.scribd.com/document/411772438/Estate-v-HBO-Ruling-5-28-19
 
HBO did not win anything, they have 7 more days to come up with a new defense.. They are saying HBO won only because they bought more time.



PS. I received a lead time up to 30 days to get the May 23rd transcripts. It does have a price tag to it, not nearly as high as if I were to rush deliver it and get it before the MJ Estate gets it... Is it your opinion I should just start aiming and planning for the next hearing on June 24th since we already know the ruling is to basicall give HBO a re-do?

June 4th, HBO has to submit their new defense.. By June 17th, The MJ Estate has to respond.. June 24th they go back to court..

Meaning we could get big news on the 10 year anniversary... June 25th! How is this not intentional?
 
KOPV said:
HBO did not win anything, they have 7 more days to come up with a new defense.. They are saying HBO won only because they bought more time.



PS. I received a lead time up to 30 days to get the May 23rd transcripts. It does have a price tag to it, not nearly as high as if I were to rush deliver it and get it before the MJ Estate gets it... Is it your opinion I should just start aiming and planning for the next hearing on June 24th since we already know the ruling is to basicall give HBO a re-do?

June 4th, HBO has to submit their new defense.. By June 17th, The MJ Estate has to respond.. June 24th they go back to court..

Meaning we could get big news on the 10 year anniversary... June 25th! How is this not intentional?
Click to expand...

I think you are being very optimistic. I understand that the decision on 24th June will be just about whether matter is 'arbitrable'. After that, they will have to decide what the results of the arbitration will be....so one more likely court date at a minimum.

(Alternatively, if the judge decides it is not 'arbitrable', I don't know if the Estate can appeal..that would be a longer process again).

A person with legal knowlege has tweeted:

All Judge Wu has decided is that he is not remanding to state court and that he, and not an arbitrator, will decide whether the dispute is subject to arbitration. Sometimes parties agree to arbitrate and ALSO agree to let the arbitrator decide if their dispute can be arbitrated
Click to expand...

Also:

Unlike question of who decides arbitrability, question of whether a dispute is arbitrable favors arbitration. Supreme Court says that if the agreement is ambiguous at all, the courts must interpret in favor of arbitrability .
Click to expand...

And:
Its (HBO's) arguments that the Estate's case is "frivolous" or whatever are irrelevant to that issue. HBO must show that the parties NEVER agreed to arbitrate. Given the contract, I don't see how HBO can show that.
Click to expand...

(With many thanks to this very helpful fan / attorney on Twitter)
 
Last edited:
myosotis said:
I think you are being very optimistic. I understand that the decision on 24th June will be just about whether matter is 'arbitrable'. After that, they will have to decide what the results of the arbitration will be....so one more likely court date at a minimum.

(Alternatively, if the judge decides it is not 'arbitrable', I don't know if the Estate can appeal..that would be a longer process again).

A person with legal knowlege has tweeted:



Also:



And:


(With many thanks to this very helpful fan / legal advisor on Twitter)
Click to expand...

I agree. that's why i'm still very nervous about this. i have hope. but, who knows until the 24th? or maybe alittle early.
 
I'm not sure whether we will know a lot on the 24th about whether the case goes forward. I only scanned over the ruling documents and I don't understand legal stuff but I got the impression the impasse seems to be about MJE wanting to conform to the current AAA Rules (relating to arbitration) that came into effect after the Agreement was signed? It seems like such a basic thing that needs to be cleared up first, this case hasn't even got on to the first rung of the ladder really. Maybe it will move quickly once this has been cleared up though?
 
myosotis;4259032 said:
"
HBO must show that the parties NEVER agreed to arbitrate. Given the contract, I don't see how HBO can show that. "

(With many thanks to this very helpful fan / legal advisor on Twitter)
Click to expand...

The court documents seem to be making a thing of the proof coming the other way. Is there an impasse with this situation due to current AAA rules?

The Supreme Court has repeatedly and recently reminded courts that they “should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that they did so.”
Click to expand...
 
WannaScream said:
The court documents seem to be making a thing of the proof coming the other way. Is there an impasse with this situation due to current AAA rules?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. In this case the Court will decide arbitrability, not the arbitrator.

Footnote: WHY is every court case relating to MJ so COMPLICATED for we poor non-legal fans? Can't we (and MJ) catch a break?
All power to Mr Steinsapir on this one. Hope he 'does the biz' with his and the Estate legal team's next 7 pages of allowable submission. I doubt I'll understand a word of it.....
 
myosotis said:
I don't think so. In this case the Court will decide arbitrability, not the arbitrator.

Footnote: WHY is every court case relating to MJ so COMPLICATED for we poor non-legal fans? Can't we (and MJ) catch a break?
All power to Mr Steinsapir on this one. Hope he 'does the biz' with his and the Estate legal team's next 7 pages of allowable submission. I doubt I'll understand a word of it.....
Click to expand...


I'm confused because the court doc says
Because the Court has not yet decided whether it or the arbitrator will decide arbitrability
Click to expand...
.
I've never looked at anyone else's court cases before so I don't know if it's usually this complicated lol
 
WannaScream said:
I'm confused because the court doc says
.
I've never looked at anyone else's court cases before so I don't know if it's usually this complicated lol
Click to expand...

Looking at the full court document on Scribd, I think you are right.

I think the confusion arose from interpretation of the short 'Ruling' that was produced earlier. I can't attach a photo, but it said:

The Court adopts its tentative ruling (provided to the parties at the start of the hearing on the motion to remand...) 1. The motion to remand is denied and 2. The motion to compel arbitration is denied insofar as it contends that the gateway issue of arbitrability is to be decided by the arbitrator rather than the Court, pursuant to clear and unmistakable evidence. As to the arbitrability issue itself, the court will allow supplemental briefing as follows....
Click to expand...

The fan / legal advisor who was commenting* then said this:

... The Court did NOT say whether the dispute is or is not arbitrable. Rather, he said he will decide that on June 24 after some further arguments. Note that on this argument, the Estate is at an advantage ...
Click to expand...

But in retrospect, that doesn't look right in the light of the full 1st hearing ruling document on scribd.

*in the @andjustice4some Tw. thread
 
Maybe confusion but more likely malice. Anything for an anti-MJ headline. (Truly, they are the Enemy). I wish some of these journalists bothered to READ. The WHOLE POINT of the arbitration claim was that it Could be held in OPEN COURT.:

‘Leaving Neverland’ case to remain open as judge rejects Jackson estate’s arbitration request

HBO faced legal action ahead of the film's premiere earlier this year

HBO has won the first round of Michael Jackson‘s estate’s Leaving Neverland lawsuit, it has been reported.

Directed by Dan Reed, the documentary focuses on testimony by Wade Robson, 36, and James Safechuck, 41, who both claim that Jackson sexually abused them when they were children.
Ahead of its premiere in March, Jackson’s estate sued the HBO network while protesting the late star’s innocence. Claiming that his accusers are seeking financial gain, the complaint to Los Angeles Superior Court read: “Michael is an easy target because he is not here to defend himself, and the law does not protect the deceased from defamation, no matter how extreme the lies are.”

Now, it has been reported that the case will remain open in court. Following a hearing last week, a federal judge has rejected a motion from Jackson’s estate to throw the case to an arbitrator.

The plaintiff alleges that Leaving Neverland constitutes a breach of a non-disparagement clause in an agreement that is 27 years old. It’s said that the deal provided the network with rights to air a Michael Jackson live show around the time of his 1991 album, ‘Dangerous’

The estate doesn’t want to litigate in open court, but instead invoked an arbitration clause in the old deal, aiming to resolve the conflict before the American Arbitration Association.

HBO previously claimed that the decades-old deal had expired, and therefore does not cover the Leaving Neverland film. The broadcasters hit out at legal action set in motion by Jackson’s estate, claiming it was a “transparent effort to bolster their publicity campaign against the documentary”.

Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing before his death in 2009.

Meanwhile, pop star Aaron Carter has recently spoken out on how Jackson behaved inappropriately “one time” during their friendship. The singer, who was friends with the King of Pop when he was a teenager, had previously slammed accusations made in Leaving Neverland.



Read more at https://www.nme.com/news/leaving-ne...bitration-request-2502695#2qYZ07shWV3CVLjT.99
 
Everybody get ready for tomorrow. HBO responds and MJEstate set their campaign for micheal 10th anniversary passing
 
myosotis;4259069 said:
Maybe confusion but more likely malice. Anything for an anti-MJ headline. (Truly, they are the Enemy). I wish some of these journalists bothered to READ. The WHOLE POINT of the arbitration claim was that it Could be held in OPEN COURT.:

‘Leaving Neverland’ case to remain open as judge rejects Jackson estate’s arbitration request

HBO faced legal action ahead of the film's premiere earlier this year

HBO has won the first round of Michael Jackson‘s estate’s Leaving Neverland lawsuit, it has been reported.

Directed by Dan Reed, the documentary focuses on testimony by Wade Robson, 36, and James Safechuck, 41, who both claim that Jackson sexually abused them when they were children.
Ahead of its premiere in March, Jackson’s estate sued the HBO network while protesting the late star’s innocence. Claiming that his accusers are seeking financial gain, the complaint to Los Angeles Superior Court read: “Michael is an easy target because he is not here to defend himself, and the law does not protect the deceased from defamation, no matter how extreme the lies are.”

Now, it has been reported that the case will remain open in court. Following a hearing last week, a federal judge has rejected a motion from Jackson’s estate to throw the case to an arbitrator.

The plaintiff alleges that Leaving Neverland constitutes a breach of a non-disparagement clause in an agreement that is 27 years old. It’s said that the deal provided the network with rights to air a Michael Jackson live show around the time of his 1991 album, ‘Dangerous’

The estate doesn’t want to litigate in open court, but instead invoked an arbitration clause in the old deal, aiming to resolve the conflict before the American Arbitration Association.

HBO previously claimed that the decades-old deal had expired, and therefore does not cover the Leaving Neverland film. The broadcasters hit out at legal action set in motion by Jackson’s estate, claiming it was a “transparent effort to bolster their publicity campaign against the documentary”.

Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing before his death in 2009.

Meanwhile, pop star Aaron Carter has recently spoken out on how Jackson behaved inappropriately “one time” during their friendship. The singer, who was friends with the King of Pop when he was a teenager, had previously slammed accusations made in Leaving Neverland.



Read more at https://www.nme.com/news/leaving-ne...bitration-request-2502695#2qYZ07shWV3CVLjT.99
Click to expand...

These idiots does not seem to get we do not have to depend on them for the facts. We can see the transcripts for ourselves to see what they say. And Aaron Carter clarified what he was saying and it was nothing what the media was thinking.
 
They've changed the date again. The next hearing won't be on 24th June after all.

Update: MJ Estate v HBO hearing date on 6/24/19 has been continued until 7/15/19 due to scheduling conflicts for the HBO attorneys. New hearing date is July 15, 2019.
Click to expand...
 
Unless this has been changed to, we should hear MJE on the 17th
 
myosotis said:
They've changed the date again. The next hearing won't be on 24th June after all.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous and stupid. seriously? so what Michael estate planning on doing? are they still gonna speak out on the 17th? HBO need to hang up already and know that they lying. stop dragging this crap for money.

b2e20d526f9b8d898f0657b2f6a443a5.jpg
 
F:censored:ing HBO! First St. Louis Blues got me angry for tying the series and now this? That tears it!:angry:
 
SmoothGangsta said:
HBO delaying this thing as long as they possibly can.
Click to expand...

YEP!!!!!

What the heck are they so afraid of? I mean, in my opinion, if they were SO SURE of themselves, they would not be delaying. They would just plow though this and keep it moving.

For me, "getting it over" and "moving on," are the operative words. I guess that's just me!!
 
There has been no mention of the date 17th being changed. This date, not even HBO would want that date pushed.

The data gave potholes sides 7 days to respond. Delaying it would give the MJE a longer time to plan their responce.
 
Everybody get ready for tomorrow. Michael Jackson Estate goes back to court. Let’s hope we are getting somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top