KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]

[Mary93]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

TMZ claims thats been done.

"Katherine Jackson just got shut down by an L.A. judge ... who REJECTED her bid for a new trial in the Michael Jackson wrongful death case.

Katherine's recourse now is to take up her beef with the California Court of Appeal. She's already filed legal docs with the court".

Yes, but the decision is yet to be made. The judge who denied the new trial is Yvette Palazuelos, so the trial judge.

 

[Mary93]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

The only thing I want is this case to be over as soon as possible. I've had enough of all these money-making trials...

 

[Mneme]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

another article with detailed comments from Putnam

BY NANCY DILLON / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
....
'In order to protect our jurors from after-the-fact harassment and their deliberative process from misconstruction, the law forbids the courts from considering affidavits discussing the jury's reasoning and mental processes,' AEG attorney Marvin Putnam,
....
"The court had no choice but to disregard those affidavits. In order to protect our jurors from after-the-fact harassment and their deliberative process from misconstruction, the law forbids the courts from considering affidavits discussing the jury's reasoning and mental processes," he said.

This problem was in my head the last weeks!
(but I did not dare to ask you because it could be understand as arrogant and Germany, you know, has get its democracy and law only with the help from the Allied forces and that was not very long ago).

/Jamba:
Your example with the person who did a test and after a few days wants to change the answer hits the nail!
The professor would say ' Are you sure your mind is healthy?' or so.

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Great start for the day to hear good news. Now we just wait few years of appeals etc whatever they might come up with. I don't think KJ is going to stop because she needs to make money for cubs retirement fund, so we shall be back in few years time pondering the result of appeal.


"There is something called the doctrine of invited error. It basically says that a party cannot create a problem and then complain about the very problem it created later," Putnam said.

"That is precisely what plaintiffs were attempting to do here. Since March of last year they have argued to use the exact language on the jury form that they now suddenly claim for the first time was a misstatement of the law. As the court held, California law doesn't tolerate such bait and switch tactics."

That was funny It is like they were asking judge to protect them from their own stupidity.

"In order to protect our jurors from after-the-fact harassment and their deliberative process from misconstruction, the law forbids the courts from considering affidavits discussing the jury's reasoning and mental processes,' AEG attorney Marvin Putnam"

Panish as Co must have know that before they went after the jurors? Maybe it was an act of desperation, throw something on the wall and see it it sticks?

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I have to post Alan Duke's latest pathetic article. The bolded is the only part of the article where he gave any column space to AEG's side argument. His head is way too deep in plaintiffs side a.. to be non-biased reporter.

New trial in Michael Jackson wrongful-death suit rejected
By Alan Duke, CNN

Los Angeles (CNN) -- The judge who presided over the Michael Jackson wrongful-death trial last year issued a final rejection of the Jacksons' request for a new trial on Monday.

The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson's mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.

Lawyers for mother Katherine Jackson argued that the verdict form used by the jury was faulty and that the judge erred by refusing to let them pursue a negligence claim independent of the hiring case.

Their motion for a new trial filed in December included sworn statements from four of the 12 jurors saying they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form.

Jackson died from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009, which Dr. Conrad Murray told police he used to treat the pop icon's insomnia as he prepared for a tour produced by AEG Live.

Los Angeles County Judge Yvette Palazuelos issued a tentative ruling earlier in January saying she did not err in her decisions on the verdict form or with the dismissal of the negligence claim.
She heard oral arguments on January 3 and filed her final decision denying the request on Monday.
Jackson lawyers have indicated they will appeal the jury's verdict.

AEG Live lawyers filed statements from seven other jurors saying they were not confused by the verdict form.

The jurors cited by the Jackson motion used the words "stunned," "upset" and "shocked" when they were told they had to stop deliberations after a majority agreed the answer was "no" to the second question on the verdict form: "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"

One juror called the question "a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case."

"After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG LIve," another juror said. "Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded."

Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contended that Palazuelos erred by denying their request to add the words "at any time" to the second question.

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Ivy, whats this means?

01/03/2014 Order filed. re costs on appeal. If no briefs re costs are filed within 10 days, the court will dismiss the appeal herein with parties to bear own costs.

01/08/2014 Stipulation filed to: re costs on appeal

01/09/2014 Dismissal order filed.

I found it here:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2044484&doc_no=B248420

Someone should have filed something on 13th of Jan, otherwise court dismiss appeal?

Then disposition says Voluntary Dismissal 01/09/2014?
--------------------------

Separate issue.
"Attorneys for the Jackson family matriarch say they will appeal to a higher state court."

Are they going to appeal of judges decision not to grant them new trial, or are media just repeating old stuff and plaintiffs appeal only dismissal of negligent claim and dismissal of RP and Gonga?

 

[pug]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

This contention submitted for the appeal leads me to believe Mrs. Jackson's lawyers are only trying to attach fees to help them recoup their expenses: "Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contended that Palazuelos erred by denying their request to add the words "at any time" to the second question."

Such a statement could not be added because it sets a precedent for employers to be liable for inappropriate or criminal behaviors of their employees at any time. An employer cannot be culpable for an employees misbehavior until they become aware of it and refuse or neglect to do anything about it.

 

[ivy]

I do not know what these lawyers said without transcripts and honestly, I do not believe it truly matters.

actually it does matter, a whole a lot. Especially during an appeal, you can only bring in what is on the record of the lower court such as motions filed, transcripts of hearings and so on. What they said (relevant transcript portions were added to these latest motions) versus what they did (no opposition,or motions but to the contrary filing instructions with CACI) might hurt them.

The judge ruled CACI was preferred before deliberations and was against the addition of the words “at any time” to question two. She stated the lawyers could state their interpretation of that question which they did. There is no reason for her to believe there were errors in her own actions.

True and we know the reason for this based on what I posted before. CACI is the official and preferred instructions for CA civil trials and their use is "strongly encouraged". And the party wanting non CACI instructions has the affirmative burden to make a legal case for using a non-CACI instructions.

My personal opinion is that Jacksons at no time made a request for BAJI and their modification request for CACI was brief and wasn't followed through to the point of meeting the burden of making a case why that modification was justified.

Judge can only decide on what was presented to her. It's not like she can say "hey wait Jacksons, why not use BAJI, it might be to your advantage". As far as she is concerned both parties were submitting her CACI based instructions. That's the "invited error" Putnam talking about. You can't really file 4-5 drafts of CACI and then after the verdict cry "it should be BAJI" and blame the judge for it. It's not like they went "we want BAJI, We want BAJI, We want BAJI" and the judge went "no" and made a mistake.

I am quite concerned that a justice system would allow a jury to deliberate on only one element when three elements were presented to them. It is not logical to me so I am very interested in hearing how the judge reasoned that it was acceptable that the jurors only deliberated on hiring and not retention and supervision.

I'm thinking you haven't experienced any jury deliberations. Unlike what you think deliberations doesn't have a set rules or set procedures. Jurors are free to approach to the deliberations, voting and determining the verdict as they like. Quite often they aren't allowed to refer to a dictionary and they are expected to make decisions based on their common sense and real word experience. As AEG argued and the judge confirmed the deliberation process is generally seen as a "black box" and unless there's a jury misconduct what they did during deliberations aren't inquired. Jurors are not asked for the reasoning they used to reach their verdict or the reasons they voted the way they did.

Question please: do you know of any case studies that are more similar to this particular case? For example: are there any case studies where hiring was done retroactively? I am glad the plaintiffs are appealing because there are lingering questions that need to be answered. This case may very well set a precedent for cases following depending on the appellate courts' rulings.

to be honest I'm not really motivated for searching case studies especially if it doesn't peak my interest. But that shouldn't stop you or anyone else. I believe everyone is capable of doing research of their own.

As for the precedent, I agree with one of the Law360 articles I posted several weeks back. We are talking about a very serious precedent that would change the whole employment process. I feel it's unlikely.

Asking for supplies and noting scheduling issues may make the judge feel the jurors were comfortable with her however, jurors interviewed after the verdict stated jurors decided not to ask her any questions during deliberations despite having them for their own reasons.

just for your information, just because they ask a question doesn't mean they would get an answer. Judge's do not and cannot answer all the questions. Such as if a jury asks meaning of a word, judge might reply with saying use your own understanding. Or if in this case "if we answered no to Q2 should we stop" the answer would be "yes" as that's what the verdict form instructed them to do. It wouldn't make a difference. It's not like the judge will reply with "oh forget the verdict form instructions and carry on deliberating" to that question.

Example: When Zimmerman jury asked for clarification about manslaughter charge, judge replied by saying court cannot engage in general discussion. This examples demonstrates that not every jury question can be answered.

And honestly how can you blame the judge if the jurors themselves decided not to ask questions? If they had a question they should have asked it no matter what. For example do you have any problems standing your ground on this discussion despite the fact that majority seems to not agree with you generally? If you can stand your ground despite of strong opposition so can the jurors. Crying after the fact isn't really an excuse in my book.

This problem was in my head the last weeks!
(but I did not dare to ask you because it could be understand as arrogant and Germany, you know, has get its democracy and law only with the help from the Allied forces and that was not very long ago).

you can always ask what you want to ask.

Ivy, whats this means?

01/03/2014 Order filed. re costs on appeal. If no briefs re costs are filed within 10 days, the court will dismiss the appeal herein with parties to bear own costs.

01/08/2014 Stipulation filed to: re costs on appeal

01/09/2014 Dismissal order filed.

I found it here:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2044484&doc_no=B248420

Someone should have filed something on 13th of Jan, otherwise court dismiss appeal?

Then disposition says Voluntary Dismissal 01/09/2014?

That's the appeal related to summary judgment which they filed back in May. First Jacksons asked for an extension and then asked for a dismissal. Court was asking to see if one party would seek costs from another party (meaning would AEG ask Jacksons to pay their legal costs in relation to that appeal). If no parties filed a motion about costs, the court would rule that each party would pay their own costs. (Ivy's note: as that appeal has never came to the brief stage, probably AEG did not have any costs and Jacksons only had the cost of filing fee). So the court dismissed that appeal per Jacksons request and everyone would pay their own costs - if any.

Separate issue.
"Attorneys for the Jackson family matriarch say they will appeal to a higher state court."

Are they going to appeal of judges decision not to grant them new trial, or are media just repeating old stuff and plaintiffs appeal only dismissal of negligent claim and dismissal of RP and Gonga?

Boyle quote at AP and Panish quote at NYDN seems to be new. I personally have no doubt that there will be at least one main appeal that includes all of the claims we heard until now such as general negligence claim, verdict forms, verdict and so on.

 

[Bubs]

Do we still get to read judges ruling?
I'm interested in this bit:
“The court finds no jury confusion based on the admissible evidence,” Palazuelos ruled."

What is that admissible evidence? I know judge didn't allow jurors affidavits as evidence, but seemingly there was something else too.

Ps, thanks Ivy for replying to my above question. I'm only learning how to read appeal court website and it's a bit confusing reading.

Ps 2. I'm reading Anthony McCartney's tweets, Charles T is asking some questions from him:
Charles Thomson ‏@CEThomson 17h
@mccartneyAP Several jurors said they were annoyed by the instructions and wanted to find AEG responsible but were prevented by the judge.

and Anthony replied this:

@CEThomson The judge ending up striking all juror declarations, ruling it would only be proper to consider them if misconduct was an issue

Panish and Co was complaining after trial about jury misconduct. Does that mean that Panish and Co couldn't provide any evidence regarding jury misconduct, thus judge refused allow juror affidavits?

 

[serendipity]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

That made me laugh!

Asking for supplies and noting scheduling issues may make the judge feel the jurors were comfortable with her however, jurors interviewed after the verdict stated jurors decided not to ask her any questions during deliberations despite having them for their own reasons.

That is not the judge's fault. They could have asked her as they did for other things, but they chose not to, because they figured it out on their own.

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I have never understood why the Plantiffs and those four juror affidavits were focusing on the timing of the hiring when that is not even the question, the question was if he was negligent for the job for which he was hired. So really the only way Panish would have got his desired result was that if the question was, 'was Conrad Murray negligent at any time'.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Do we still get to read judges ruling?

if someone *cough* me *cough* gets it.

Ps, thanks Ivy for replying to my above question. I'm only learning how to read appeal court website and it's a bit confusing reading.

yeah I learned to read the code as well.

Ps 2. I'm reading Anthony McCartney's tweets, Charles T is asking some questions from him:
Charles Thomson ?@CEThomson 17h
@mccartneyAP Several jurors said they were annoyed by the instructions and wanted to find AEG responsible but were prevented by the judge.

and Anthony replied this:

@CEThomson The judge ending up striking all juror declarations, ruling it would only be proper to consider them if misconduct was an issue

Panish and Co was complaining after trial about jury misconduct. Does that mean that Panish and Co couldn't provide any evidence regarding jury misconduct, thus judge refused allow juror affidavits?

Well Jacksons intent to move for a new trial listed jury misconduct but the following motions did not list it well probably mainly there wasn't a jury misconduct. If you read what I wrote to Tygger there's not really a set procedure about how the jurors need to deliberate. and jury misconduct is pretty specific. It includes stuff like coming to a decision by chance - such as flipping a coin and saying if heads guilty/liable, if tails not guilty/not liable. And stuff like not following the rules /law. For example jurors often instructed not to refer to a dictionary or Bible. And one of the examples (mentioned in the motions was) jurors adding lawyer fees to the damages when they were told they should only consider damages or the jurors changing the damages calculation formula given to them. As you can see jury misconduct is very limited.

In the deliberations the jurors read the jury instructions and read the questions. They were expected to interpret what the question asked them and answer accordingly. A Juror saying "I think this refers to time of hiring" isn't a misconduct issue. There's nothing stopping the other jurors to say "I disagree". And it's not clear cut. Even affidavits was admissible you have 4 complaining about the lack of "At any time" and you have 7 who say whole time period was considered. As juror#27 have written on their very first day on this forum jurors might have focused a lot more on the time of hire and still consider the remaining time. That's their choice. That might even mean they were more influenced by Putnam's closing in which he pointed out the main point was "for which he was hired" than to Panish's argument that "it was the whole time". That might mean AEG had stronger argument than Panish. It does not mean misconduct on jury's part.

I have never understood why the Plantiffs and those four juror affidavits were focusing on the timing of the hiring when that is not even the question, the question was if he was negligent for the job for which he was hired. So really the only way Panish would have got his desired result was that if the question was, 'was Conrad Murray negligent at any time'.

I agree. I don't think that question had any time period and Jacksons do not claim that either. Their claim was Q1 (question of hiring) lead jurors to consider time of hire. I think time is irrelevant. That question is about "job for which he was hired". If the jurors think he was hired to be a "general practitioner" he was fit and competent to do that all along. Murray was clearly unfit and incompetent in regards to Propofol administration but did AEG knew that was what he was hired for? I don't think so. And to me personally all of these complaining about Q2 is a little meaningless. I don't think the answer to Q3 would be "yes". and I think even if the jurors answered first 5 questions , the best case scenario (from Jackson perspective) would be yes-yes-no-yes-yes.

 

[Annita]

Quote:
“We were confident that the court would uphold the jury’s verdict,” he wrote in a statement. “This is also fantastic news for the taxpayers of California, who won’t have their hard-earned money wasted retrying plaintiffs’ baseless claims. Enough is enough.”


What does Putman mean with fantastic news for taxpayers? I thought in a civil-process plaintiff and defendant has to pay the costs?

 

[qbee]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

An interesting video I found on FB facebook discussing MJJCommunity and Juror #27 to prove 7 Jurors were lying. So Katherine Jackson should be allowed to have a new trial. Does this make sense I was really having a hard time following and understand it.

http://youtu.be/IG1MQYCYZjo

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I can't view it qbee, but I'm fairly certain that if that was the subject matter that it wouldn't make sense and it would be no surprise that you had a hard time following it. Lol

 

[ivy]

Quote:
“We were confident that the court would uphold the jury’s verdict,” he wrote in a statement. “This is also fantastic news for the taxpayers of California, who won’t have their hard-earned money wasted retrying plaintiffs’ baseless claims. Enough is enough.”


What does Putman mean with fantastic news for taxpayers? I thought in a civil-process plaintiff and defendant has to pay the costs?

It is taking court time and court resources and that comes from the pocket of the taxpayers.

An interesting video I found on FB facebook discussing MJJCommunity and Juror #27 to prove 7 Jurors were lying. So Katherine Jackson should be allowed to have a new trial. Does this make sense I was really having a hard time following and understand it.

I believe that's mainly a video version of VMJ blog (I did a quick scan). Why? I don't know. I don't want to sound harsh but I wouldn't spend time trying to watch/understand highly biased opinions combined with lack of knowledge of the law and a whole a lot assumptions. The end result is at best a theory and at worst is a fantasy/conspiracy.

 

[jamba]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

"She also determined that there was no evidence that the panel was confused by the verdict form, noting that jurors often wrote her notes about scheduling concerns and to ask for supplies during deliberations."

What I get out of this is just what the bolded part says--that at the time (that phrase again) of the deliberation process, judge had no evidence of jury confusion, so how is she supposed to find NOW after the fact, that they were confused? The only way, would be if admissible evidence exists, which it does not.

The justice system is supposed to be based on evidence that the court accepts as evidence, and this is the crux of the matter. All the media reports that claim to present evidence, all the accusations which claim to be factual, all the wooly headed members of the public that accept as evidence rumor, media spins and fabrications, attorney claims that they have evidence (the smoking gun), etc etc, do not count on their own as evidence until they are examined and accepted by a court.

A trial and a jury decision needs to be based on admissible evidence, and that goes for MJ's 2005 trial, as well as this AEG civil suit, as well as any other trial. No evidence=no conviction.This is something people who believe MJ was guilty in spite of the 14 not-guilty verdicts don't understand.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Judge's ruling is epic. She cites all the relevant transcripts.

 

[Victory22]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

An interesting video I found on FB facebook discussing MJJCommunity and Juror #27 to prove 7 Jurors were lying. So Katherine Jackson should be allowed to have a new trial. Does this make sense I was really having a hard time following and understand it.

http://youtu.be/IG1MQYCYZjo

The music is as bad as the vid. LOL.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Summary of the judge's ruling

- All juror affidavits (4 by Jacksons and 7 by AEG) have been stricken as they are inadmissible as they are about juror's mental processes and reasoning. As they are stricken Judge also will not address the claims against lawyers.

- All juror affidavits filed are now under seal as Judge believes the identities of the jurors need to be protected due to 1)someone taking a picture through a window, 2) someone approaching to 2 jurors 3) William Wagener taking pictures of jurors, 4) a threat Paul Gongaware received during trial and 5) a concerning email sent to the court.

Now on to the Judge's denial of the request for a new trial

- There's a correction added that negligent hiring/supervision/retention aren't three separate causes of action but they are three separate causes of recovery.

- Judge states that Jacksons always maintained their opposition to Q1 but it was legally proper hence court overrules Jacksons objections.

- Judge states that the record does not show that Jacksons asked for BAJI modification or three separate definitions for negligent hiring/retention/supervision. The transcript portions the judge add include Panish saying "I know we don't want to copy BAJI" and "I'm not saying pick BAJI" and Chang saying "we'll work on it". Judge states she asked plaintiffs if they wanted BAJI or CACI, they declined BAJI (I'm not saying pick BAJI") and even though they said "we'll work on it" in regards to break out negligent hiring/retention and supervision they submitted CACI instructions. So the judge says given that Jacksons denied BAJI when asked and did not provide any break out instructions , they cannot argue that the court committed error by not giving them.

- As for adding "at any time", judge states that was a request done orally and the transcript is vague in regards to which question Boyle was referring. Court lists several examples that Jacksons wanted the exact language of CACI. The transcripts added by the judge includes Panish saying "we proposed the CACI one", Panish saying "what is wrong with CACI?" and Boyle saying "Your honor, I think if there's ever one that we should definitely stick with a CACI in this case, it should be the negligent hiring, supervision and retention that has been approved by the Judicial Council". So Judge finds that Jacksons wanted CACI and the exact language and they are stopped from arguing that the court made an error based on invited error doctrine.

- As for a general verdict form (were they negligent? what are the damages) court states this was mentioned orally and opposed by AEG and there's no ruling on it as it wasn't mentioned again or a written general negligence form was not submitted to the court. However judge states that a general verdict form would not change the verdict as the jury would still be required to consider all of the required elements of negligent hiring/retention/supervision and a "no" answer would still mean AEG would be found not negligent.

- As for Q1, Judge says employment relationship is needed for negligent hiring/supervision and retention and also as there's a dispute in regards to who hired Murray , AEG or Michael. Judge says Murray's hiring wasn't clear cut and if the Q1 was omitted and the verdict form started with Q2 it would create a confusion as it assumed Murray was hired. So the judge says jurors first had to determine if AEG hired Murray and then determine whether this was negligent.

- For Q2 the judge states that is asks if Murray was unfit or incompetent "work for which he was hired" and not "at the time he hired". Judge also states that adding "at any time" would create confusion as it could include time periods before AEG even had contact or hired Murray and the time period after MJ's death.

- As for the definition of "unfit and incompetent" judge states that there's no CA law that it includes "unethical". Judge says competence and fitness for a job depends on many factors. Judge states it was Jacksons experts duty to describe Murray unethical conducts and tie Murray's unethical conducts to unfitness or incompetence to practice medicine.

- Judge cites CACI 426 sourced and authority (Mendoza case example here: http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/426.html) and then cites BAJI and says that negligent supervision is tied to initial negligent hiring and the qualities of the employee known to employer and in view of the work entrusted to him and her. In more simpler terms the judge cites a court of appeal ruling which states that supervision is required when employer knows that the employee is a person who could not be trusted to act properly without being supervised. With no such knowledge there's no liability for negligent supervision. Judge states that CA law provides liability for supervision and retention but it requires that to be in light of hiring based on the qualifications and character of the employee and the tasks to be performed.
(Ivy's note: It sounds like you can only be found negligent of supervision if you knew you had an employee that needed supervision and cannot be trusted to act on their own and yet you failed to provide supervision.)

- As the juror affidavits stricken judge is not considering them in regards to a possible confusion about Q1+ Q2. Judge again repeats Q2 did not ask "at the time he was hired", it asked "work for which he was hired". Judge also mentions (and adds transcripts) Panish saying in his closing " it's the entire time" twice and saying "at any time" during his rebuttal. Judge mentions in his closing Putnam did not say anything contrary and only mentioned "job for which he was hired".

- Judge mentions jurors sent her several notes over the 5 months of trial and therefore finds it unlikely that the jurors would hesitate to send questions to the court if they wanted.

- Judge states the answers to the verdict form - Q1 favorable for plaintiff and Q2 unfavorable for the plaintiff- demonstrates no jury confusion and jurors ability to answer questions separately and based on its merits.

- Judge explains Jacksons general negligence claim of 1)AEG interfering with MJ's healthcare and his doctor-patient relationship with Murray 2) negligent dissemination of knowingly false information about Murray to stop concerns expressed about MJ's health, 3)negligent infliction of pressure on MJ to continue tour and 4) failure to postpone or cancel shows after learning MJ's declining health. Judge says AEG's interference with MJ's health cannot be argued as general negligence as the interference is caused by the Murray hiring. Therefore that's a negligent hiring/retention and supervision claim.

- Judge states existence and scope of one's duty of care is determined according to circumstances. Judge mentions CA supreme court and duties about sports and how the court considered the nature of sports. Judge states MJ was a world class performer who did many live concerts and tours. AEG is a concert promoter. The entertainment industry is known to involve a lot of pressure to perform and a lot of capital investment. However the judge states a reasonable person can cannot foresee that wanting to maintain a concert tour even in spite of undefined health issues would lead to the artist's death. Judge states that it's unreasonable to think that AEG wanted to maintain the concert tour but also foresee that Michael would die due to their actions. Judge states AEG had the greatest incentive to avoid such outcome (MJ's death).
(Ivy's note: In other words the judge is trying to say that if the argument is that AEG wanted to make sure that the concerts happened, they would want Michael alive and well to perform. Michael dying means cancelling the shows - something AEG did not want.)

- Judge states 8.1 of MJ/ AEG contact was about production of the show and did not mention medical care or Murray. The MJ/AEG/Murray contract mentioned medical care and Murray. So Judge stated MJ/AEG concert contract had nothing to do with medical care where as MJ/AEG/Murray contract was specifically about medical care.

- Judge states by law a person cannot be subjected to two duties for the same conduct. Judge states AEG's actions was subject to negligence claim based on their contract with Murray hence the proper negligent hiring, supervision and retention claim.

Edited to add

here's the document : http://www.scribd.com/doc/199865002/Jackson-vs-AEG-New-Trial-Ruling

[scribd]199865002[/scribd]

 

[Aquarius]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

The Jacksons should put this in their heads:

"However the judge states a reasonable person can cannot foresee that wanting to maintain a concert tour even in spite of undefined health issues would lead to the artist's death"

and this too:

(Ivy's note: In other words the judge is trying to say that if the argument is that AEG wanted to make sure that the concerts happened, they would want Michael alive and well to perform. Michael dying means cancelling the shows - something AEG did not want.)

I'm sure no one wanted Michael dead but if they want to blame someone, they should blame Conrad. He left Michael during a critical moment to chat with his girlfriend.

eta: @Ivy. Thank you for all the work. You are amazing.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Waw that judge basically said what Putnam was saying, so it seems that law firm has more understanding of the law for this case.

- "There's a correction added that negligent hiring/supervision/retention aren't three separate causes of action but they are three separate causes of recovery."
^^This is useful to know, and I like the way she explains why this is a negligent hiring/retention and supervision claim--remember after 5 months of trial, Panish argued that this case should have been tried under a different claim.

-Basically both sides wasted the jurors time interviewing them for these affidavits, and they were not even considered.

-"So the judge says given that Jacksons denied BAJI when asked and did not provide any break out instructions , they cannot argue that the court committed error by not giving them."
^^Well didn't they know that there were transcripts that would show what they requested and what they said? After all they are in a court of law where facts are recorded. This borders on foolishness now.

-"Judge states it was Jacksons experts role to describe Murray unethical conducts and tie Murray's unethical conducts to unfitness or incompetence to practice medicine."
^^There you go. They never did that but focused on him being in debt and how that was a red flag, and AEG created a conflict of interest.

-"However the judge states a reasonable person can cannot foresee that wanting to maintain a concert tour even in spite of undefined health issues would lead to the artist's death. Judge states that it's unreasonable to think that AEG wanted to maintain the concert tour but also foresee that Michael would die due to their actions. Judge states AEG had the greatest incentive to avoid such outcome (MJ's death)."
^^This is something we have been saying from day one. It was in AEG's best interest to have a living Michael. Even Muarry needed a living Michael unless you get into conspiracy where he is a fall guy.

-"Judge again repeats Q2 did not ask "at the time he was hired", it asked "work for which he was hired".
^^This needs to be repeated, and the contract shows what he was hired for.

-"Judge states 8.1 of MJ/ AEG contact was about production of the show and did not mention medical care or Murray. The MJ/AEG/Murray contract mentioned medical care and Murray. So Judge stated MJ/AEG concert contract had nothing to do with medical care where as MJ/AEG/Murray contract was specifically about medical care.
^^This is very important and the distinctions between these need to be made. We have:
MJ/AEG contract = production of show
MJ/AEG/Muarry contract = medical care & Muarry

I find it interesting that Duke wrote an article and never explained any of the key points which led the judge to deny the request for a new trial.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

eta: @Ivy. Thank you for all the work. You are amazing.

thanks

btw - I plan to post the document when I get access to my computer with the watermark software in a day or two. I just did not want you all to wait for it so I did a summary (which is a relatively easy thing for me as I'm quick reader)

I find it interesting that Duke wrote an article and never explained any of the key points which led the judge to deny the request for a new trial.

the denial is 47 page ruling. plus there's the rulings about juror affidavits and sealing. Not many would read it all.

 

[jamba]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Judge did a good job--she explained her ruling for denying a new trial well, and I think her thorough response (with all the references to the transcripts) makes a successful appeal more difficult.

Thanks, Ivy, for the great summary!!

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I'm glad the Judge sealed the affidavits. Those jurors did their job and whether folks agree or disagree with the verdict, the jurors don't deserve to be harassed by people with personal agendas.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

The judge did some good work while looking at a game!!

Now the big question is are they going to look at exactly what they have to prove to win an appeal and then write the brief accordingly with facts? Are they going to look at the errors they made in this last failure and rectify them for the appeal process?

We have:

AEG trial = Lost
Petition for new trial = Lost

Ivy at least he could have put in some of her KEY statements that explained her ruling. He just went over the same old story about what Katherine filed for and how Michael died, etc. That is the problem with the press they fail to read pertinent material and provide fluffy content to their readers.

 

[Ashtanga]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Well, I hope Katherine is now able to move on and accept reality. (?) Leave Michael alone....

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

- As for the definition of "unfit and incompetent" judge states that there's no CA law that it includes "unethical". Judge says competence and fitness for a job depends on many factors. Judge states it was Jacksons experts duty to describe Murray unethical conducts and tie Murray's unethical conducts to unfitness or incompetence to practice medicine.

Which in my opinion they didn't do, this should have been their focus. Although I would still feel that Q2 would be a sticking point 'work for which he was hired', how far could an employer be held responsible if an employee exceeds their job description?

- Judge states by law a person cannot be subjected to two duties for the same conduct. Judge states AEG's actions was subject to negligence claim based on their contract with Murray hence the proper negligent hiring, supervision and retention claim.

Could I have this one ^^^ in English please.

btw - I plan to post the document when I get access to my computer with the watermark software in a day or two. I just did not want you all to wait for it so I did a summary (which is a relatively easy thing for me as I'm quick reader)

Thank you Ivy, this is very generous of you, especially if one considers that it will no doubt be copied somewhere where you will be thanked and insulted within the same sentence.

 

[jaydom7]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

it was Jacksons experts duty to describe Murray unethical conducts and tie Murray's unethical conducts to unfitness or incompetence to practice medicine.

I've said that all along.. Katherine's attorney never mentioned Murray as unethical and incompetent. That was their duty and that was to say how AEG hired an unethical doctor. They didn't concentrate on that at all

 

[sonijacim]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Thank you so much, Ivy, for all your hard work and research. I hope and pray that this year will be more quiet for all of us. And most importantly, may Paris, Prince and Blanket find peace and love.