Latest on MJJC
[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe
- Thread starter Jackson Rules
- Start date
Bad7
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2015
- Messages
- 473
- Points
- 18
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Which Hard Copy fiasco? The videotape? If so, in her deluded mind she won that case. A fan mentioned it on Twitter or Facebook and she said she won. A third party (Tom Sneddon) helping to get you off the hook is hardly winning, however.
Which Hard Copy fiasco? The videotape? If so, in her deluded mind she won that case. A fan mentioned it on Twitter or Facebook and she said she won. A third party (Tom Sneddon) helping to get you off the hook is hardly winning, however.
Last edited:
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
She hid behind the Shield Law. That's it. That's hardly "winning". Once again proves she is a liar.
She hid behind the Shield Law. That's it. That's hardly "winning". Once again proves she is a liar.
redfrog
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2015
- Messages
- 947
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
She won because she said she was sure the tape existed and the tape didn't exist.
Capisce?
BTW Tom Sneddon knew very well that Gutierrez was the source, he knew he was a liar, he knew the tape didn't exist
and he knew that Dimond herself didn't care whether it existed.
I hope the new documentary will expose that whole ugly case because it's just a shining example
how MJ's worst enemies conspired with each other to bring him down.
She won because she said she was sure the tape existed and the tape didn't exist.
Capisce?
BTW Tom Sneddon knew very well that Gutierrez was the source, he knew he was a liar, he knew the tape didn't exist
and he knew that Dimond herself didn't care whether it existed.
I hope the new documentary will expose that whole ugly case because it's just a shining example
how MJ's worst enemies conspired with each other to bring him down.
PoP
Proud Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,637
- Points
- 63
- Country
-
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Liar? Yes! Delusional? Yes! Mental? Yes! Coward? Yes! Winner? No!
I referred she's a coward because of the Shield Law. Shield Laws are for cowards.
Liar? Yes! Delusional? Yes! Mental? Yes! Coward? Yes! Winner? No!
I referred she's a coward because of the Shield Law. Shield Laws are for cowards.
christy
Proud Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,221
- Points
- 48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Hard Copy's pure bull, a total fabrication of Victor Guiterezz who's DD's lap dog.
They're all scums.... Hard Copy's banned.
Hard Copy's pure bull, a total fabrication of Victor Guiterezz who's DD's lap dog.
They're all scums.... Hard Copy's banned.
Last edited:
Ms. BlueGangsta
Proud Member
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
The irony of HER calling someone else a moron. :rofl:
Ms. BlueGangsta
Proud Member
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I wonder what they're going to do once they realize that the court of public opinion hasn't swayed in their direction because after the most recent assault on Michael in the media I saw A LOT of people denouncing the foolishness, and we all know that one thing they hope for is the estate cracking under pressure and them getting a lot of money in a settlement.
I wonder what they're going to do once they realize that the court of public opinion hasn't swayed in their direction because after the most recent assault on Michael in the media I saw A LOT of people denouncing the foolishness, and we all know that one thing they hope for is the estate cracking under pressure and them getting a lot of money in a settlement.
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
As the person responsible for this section, I'll place a warning. Let's move on from facebook posts, likes and comments. They aren't relevant to this thread. If you are interested in such things and explore reasons why kindly open a new thread.
That being said let's get back to topic.
I was able to get some documents from both Robson and Safechuck cases. Here is the ruling on demurrer - which was just 10 days ago.
https://www.scribd.com/document/322935579/Safechuck-Demurrer-Ruling
Judge granted Estate's demurrer but gave Safechuck the chance to amend. Judge says Safechuck failed to claim a duty of care that the Companies had against him.
As the person responsible for this section, I'll place a warning. Let's move on from facebook posts, likes and comments. They aren't relevant to this thread. If you are interested in such things and explore reasons why kindly open a new thread.
That being said let's get back to topic.
I was able to get some documents from both Robson and Safechuck cases. Here is the ruling on demurrer - which was just 10 days ago.
https://www.scribd.com/document/322935579/Safechuck-Demurrer-Ruling
Judge granted Estate's demurrer but gave Safechuck the chance to amend. Judge says Safechuck failed to claim a duty of care that the Companies had against him.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Thanks ivy. Why am i not surprised that the judges gives them another chance to refile.thats all that seems to happen. These lawyers supposedly arent stupid they know what is needed to be shown but dont (maybe because they just dont have the evidence) yet the judges give them numerous chances. Its like they will do anything to help keep the suites alive.
Thanks ivy. Why am i not surprised that the judges gives them another chance to refile.thats all that seems to happen. These lawyers supposedly arent stupid they know what is needed to be shown but dont (maybe because they just dont have the evidence) yet the judges give them numerous chances. Its like they will do anything to help keep the suites alive.
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Thanks.
Basically what we talked about. That Safechuck even has a problem with proving that the companies in any way had responsibolity for him, since unlike Robson, he wasn't even employed by them. The Court in this case does not even examine the three factors of 340.1, subdivision (b)(2) before a duty of care can be established.
Thanks.
Basically what we talked about. That Safechuck even has a problem with proving that the companies in any way had responsibolity for him, since unlike Robson, he wasn't even employed by them. The Court in this case does not even examine the three factors of 340.1, subdivision (b)(2) before a duty of care can be established.
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I think even if he intends to move I guess it would only make sense if he survives demurrer. If he doesn't then it is all over for him anyway.
I think even if he intends to move I guess it would only make sense if he survives demurrer. If he doesn't then it is all over for him anyway.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Do you know what evidence safechuck used to claim they owed him a duty of care.what does the judge expect him to do make up some crap about being hired by mj at that time so the judge can give it the go ahead
Do you know what evidence safechuck used to claim they owed him a duty of care.what does the judge expect him to do make up some crap about being hired by mj at that time so the judge can give it the go ahead
Annita
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,535
- Points
- 113
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I think it was discussed before.
The judge only protects himself, that there can be no reason concerning his decision for going in an successful appeal because he did not give the plaintiff sufficient space to explain his claim.
I think it was discussed before.
The judge only protects himself, that there can be no reason concerning his decision for going in an successful appeal because he did not give the plaintiff sufficient space to explain his claim.
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Yes, it is expected that he would give them a chance to amend.
In his complaint Safechuck made some lame attempts at attaching a duty of care to the companies, for example I think statements like these were attempts at that:
So I think that's all they can try: to say the companies arranged some trips they were on. But I don't think that establishes a duty of care and apparently it doesn't indeed, if the Judge says they still did not make a claim that establishes a duty of care.
Yes, it is expected that he would give them a chance to amend.
In his complaint Safechuck made some lame attempts at attaching a duty of care to the companies, for example I think statements like these were attempts at that:
So I think that's all they can try: to say the companies arranged some trips they were on. But I don't think that establishes a duty of care and apparently it doesn't indeed, if the Judge says they still did not make a claim that establishes a duty of care.
redfrog
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2015
- Messages
- 947
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I don't see why Robson satisfied this requirement.
In America employers own a duty of care for their employees even in their private lives and they have a duty to protect them from everyone?
My employer did not own any duty to protect me from anyone in my home or other people's homes, only in the workplace
or locations related to the job.
And does anyone believe that if they had been abused given the circumstances (investigation, trial, media coverage)
they shouldn't have reasonably discovered their injury long before 2010 and 2011?
Why is common sense missing in the American justice system? It's a joke.
Didn't Pepsi invite both of them and didn't Pepsi pay for the whole thing?
And MJJ Venture didn't even exist in 1988.
I don't see why Robson satisfied this requirement.
In America employers own a duty of care for their employees even in their private lives and they have a duty to protect them from everyone?
My employer did not own any duty to protect me from anyone in my home or other people's homes, only in the workplace
or locations related to the job.
And does anyone believe that if they had been abused given the circumstances (investigation, trial, media coverage)
they shouldn't have reasonably discovered their injury long before 2010 and 2011?
Why is common sense missing in the American justice system? It's a joke.
Yes, it is expected that he would give them a chance to amend.
In his complaint Safechuck made some lame attempts at attaching a duty of care to the companies, for example I think statements like these were attempts at that:
Didn't Pepsi invite both of them and didn't Pepsi pay for the whole thing?
And MJJ Venture didn't even exist in 1988.
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Thanks for the xtra info.i guess we will see but with previous lawsuits i remember judges literally giving ppl 3 or 4 chances to refile. If the evidence aint there it aint there
Thanks for the xtra info.i guess we will see but with previous lawsuits i remember judges literally giving ppl 3 or 4 chances to refile. If the evidence aint there it aint there
#MJforever57
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2013
- Messages
- 3,052
- Points
- 48
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
It is very clear Wade nor James have any proof that the companies had a reason to know that this was happen and did nothing about it. Like it was mention in this thread that this can come up in summary judgement about the companies.
It is very clear Wade nor James have any proof that the companies had a reason to know that this was happen and did nothing about it. Like it was mention in this thread that this can come up in summary judgement about the companies.
Annita
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,535
- Points
- 113
Obviously there are coming interesting updates from Ivy about Robson too.
http://www.dailymichael.com/
Safechuck Civil Case: Demurrer Update
Since Judge Beckloff’s move to Santa Monica earlier this year, the documents relates to the civil cases Beckloff oversees are no longer scanned and added to the online documents system. That meant we only had the public case summary information available to us. Unfortunately case summary system only provides limited information, showing the names of the documents filed, hearing dates and outcomes. As the case summary system showed some new documents at Robson case, I thought it would be best if we can try to get the documents so that we could learn the new developments in both Robson and Safechuck cases. Luckily Betty Brynes graciously agreed to go and get the documents. We wouldn’t have this information if it wasn’t for her. I’m grateful for all her help. In this post I’ll do an update about Safechuck case and I’ll do a separate post about the Robson case. Trust me, you wouldn’t want to miss it.
The last information we had about Safechuck cases are as follows:
•- In September 2015, Judge dismissed Safechuck’s probate claim against MJ Estate.
•- In June 2015, Judge reviewed filings and allowed the start of Safechuck’s civil case against MJ Companies.
•- In July 2015, Safechuck have filed his civil complaint. Then amended his complaint in October 2015
•- In December 2015, Estate have filed their demurrer against Safechuck civil case.
•- A hearing on the demurrer motion was set for March, 2016.
I can now report that Judge Beckloff ruled on the demurrer on August 23rd, 2016 – just 10 days ago.
Demurrer ruling document: https://www.scribd.com/document/322935579/Safechuck-Demurrer-Ruling
Judge granted Estate’s demurrer request but gave Safechuck 30 days to amend his complaint. The main reason that the judge agreed with Estate’s demurrer is that Safechuck failed to allege any duty of care MJ Companies had against him. Judge states that Safechuck first need to establish MJ Companies had a duty of care against him. Only after that whether or not he can bring this lawsuit after his 26th birthday will be determined.
Judge granting Estate’s demurrer request doesn’t mean this is over. Most likely Safechuck will amend his complaint, Estate will again file a demurrer to the amended complaint and we will go through this whole process at least one more time.
However Judge’s ruling may potentially signal an issue for Safechuck as he doesn’t have ties to the MJ Companies as Robson does. I will continue to do updates on this case to my best of ability.
http://www.dailymichael.com/
Safechuck Civil Case: Demurrer Update
Since Judge Beckloff’s move to Santa Monica earlier this year, the documents relates to the civil cases Beckloff oversees are no longer scanned and added to the online documents system. That meant we only had the public case summary information available to us. Unfortunately case summary system only provides limited information, showing the names of the documents filed, hearing dates and outcomes. As the case summary system showed some new documents at Robson case, I thought it would be best if we can try to get the documents so that we could learn the new developments in both Robson and Safechuck cases. Luckily Betty Brynes graciously agreed to go and get the documents. We wouldn’t have this information if it wasn’t for her. I’m grateful for all her help. In this post I’ll do an update about Safechuck case and I’ll do a separate post about the Robson case. Trust me, you wouldn’t want to miss it.
The last information we had about Safechuck cases are as follows:
•- In September 2015, Judge dismissed Safechuck’s probate claim against MJ Estate.
•- In June 2015, Judge reviewed filings and allowed the start of Safechuck’s civil case against MJ Companies.
•- In July 2015, Safechuck have filed his civil complaint. Then amended his complaint in October 2015
•- In December 2015, Estate have filed their demurrer against Safechuck civil case.
•- A hearing on the demurrer motion was set for March, 2016.
I can now report that Judge Beckloff ruled on the demurrer on August 23rd, 2016 – just 10 days ago.
Demurrer ruling document: https://www.scribd.com/document/322935579/Safechuck-Demurrer-Ruling
Judge granted Estate’s demurrer request but gave Safechuck 30 days to amend his complaint. The main reason that the judge agreed with Estate’s demurrer is that Safechuck failed to allege any duty of care MJ Companies had against him. Judge states that Safechuck first need to establish MJ Companies had a duty of care against him. Only after that whether or not he can bring this lawsuit after his 26th birthday will be determined.
Judge granting Estate’s demurrer request doesn’t mean this is over. Most likely Safechuck will amend his complaint, Estate will again file a demurrer to the amended complaint and we will go through this whole process at least one more time.
However Judge’s ruling may potentially signal an issue for Safechuck as he doesn’t have ties to the MJ Companies as Robson does. I will continue to do updates on this case to my best of ability.
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
It's a little tricky.
The most relevant example would be the church/school example - which most of these cases were against.
Church hires a priest. A kid goes to the church, meets the priest through the church. The priest abuses the kid (doesn't have to be inside the church). Church has a responsibility there.
In Robson's case he was hired by the companies, they supported his visa etc. He claimed the companies arranged his move to US for him to be molested. So he has some ties to the companies and he can argue that the companies had involvement and/or responsibility there. Furthermore he alleges MJ to be an agent of the companies. So they have the companies as the common denominator. Safechuck doesn't. Pepsi hired him and I don't think MJ companies ever hired him.
There is also another type of negligence which is more general and apply to the obvious situations.
For example imagine a tree company is cutting tree branches on the side of the street. People walk on the street. When you cut down the branches it falls down to the ground. So as a common sense and obvious danger, the tree company should close down the street to pedestrians while they are cutting down the tree. If they don't and a tree branch falls on a person they can sue the company for negligence even though there is no relationship between the person and the company.
These aren't perfect examples but it should give some idea.
It's a little tricky.
The most relevant example would be the church/school example - which most of these cases were against.
Church hires a priest. A kid goes to the church, meets the priest through the church. The priest abuses the kid (doesn't have to be inside the church). Church has a responsibility there.
In Robson's case he was hired by the companies, they supported his visa etc. He claimed the companies arranged his move to US for him to be molested. So he has some ties to the companies and he can argue that the companies had involvement and/or responsibility there. Furthermore he alleges MJ to be an agent of the companies. So they have the companies as the common denominator. Safechuck doesn't. Pepsi hired him and I don't think MJ companies ever hired him.
There is also another type of negligence which is more general and apply to the obvious situations.
For example imagine a tree company is cutting tree branches on the side of the street. People walk on the street. When you cut down the branches it falls down to the ground. So as a common sense and obvious danger, the tree company should close down the street to pedestrians while they are cutting down the tree. If they don't and a tree branch falls on a person they can sue the company for negligence even though there is no relationship between the person and the company.
These aren't perfect examples but it should give some idea.
redfrog
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2015
- Messages
- 947
- Points
- 0
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
They didn't hire him during the period when he was "molested".
He was hired for Earth song but that was later so it doesn't count.
Do you have any idea what kind of "common law duty owned to him by the defendants" he could come up with?
If citing those two trips didn't work what could possibly work?
They didn't hire him during the period when he was "molested".
He was hired for Earth song but that was later so it doesn't count.
Do you have any idea what kind of "common law duty owned to him by the defendants" he could come up with?
If citing those two trips didn't work what could possibly work?
barbee0715
Proud Member
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Maybe he should have sued Pepsi. Since they were using
Michael as their spokesperson. Even bigger wallets.
I'm just being sarcastic. I'm not serious.
Maybe he should have sued Pepsi. Since they were using
Michael as their spokesperson. Even bigger wallets.
I'm just being sarcastic. I'm not serious.
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
I just finished Robson news as well. It's late here. I won't tweet it until morning so MJJC get the news first. Respect77 can you post sections here please?
I just finished Robson news as well. It's late here. I won't tweet it until morning so MJJC get the news first. Respect77 can you post sections here please?
redfrog
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2015
- Messages
- 947
- Points
- 0
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
So here are Ivy's updates on the Robson case:
The last information we had about Robson case as follows:
- - September 21, 2015 - Judge overruled Estate’s demurer, Robson’s case proceeds to the next phase of discovery and summary judgment.
- - November 23, 2015 - Estate appeals Judge’s ruling on demurrer.
- - February 17, 2016 – Estate’s appeal has been denied.
- - March 3, 2016 – Case schedule including a tentative trial date is set.
- - July 13, 2016 – Robson changes lawyers. Manly, Stewart, Finaldi are his new lawyers.
This brings us to August 2016. Case summary has shown two things: mental evaluation of Robson and Robson’s deposition. The motions we got from the court helped us tremendously to learn what happened over the last few months.
MJ Estate Protective Order Robson Deposition: https://www.scribd.com/document/323025122/Mj-Estate-Robson-Deposition
Robson Opposition: https://www.scribd.com/document/323025246/Robson-Deposition-Opposition
After Estate’s appeal were denied, parties started to work on discovery. April 2016, there were some discovery issues about Estate’s responses to Robson’s written discovery request. That dispute was resolved amicably. At this time Estate also told Robson lawyers that they would seeking to take an independent mental examination of Robson and Safechuck.
May 2016, Robson’s then lawyers agreed to the mental examination in principle and requested Estate to pay Robson’s travel expenses to California (This is normal under CA court rules). June 16, 2016, Estate contacted Robson lawyers to determine the date of the mental examination. Parties agreed on August 1[SUP]st[/SUP], 2016. However Estate couldn’t get a confirmation from Robson lawyers. When they called and asked Robson lawyers said there would be some developments in the case. 2 days later Robson would change his lawyers and his new lawyers would be Manly, Stewart and Finaldi.
Robson’s new lawyers immediately objected to Robson’s independent mental examination happening on August 1[SUP]st[/SUP] and they tried to renegotiate the terms of the independent mental examination. After discussions parties agreed that the mental examination will happen as previously agreed but they delayed the date of it to August 22, 2016.
Soon after Robson’s new lawyers sent a notice that they would be deposing their own client Robson on August 24[SUP]th[/SUP], 2016. This was unexpected news for Estate as Robson lawyers never mentioned their intention before.
Then the Robson deposition has turned into a mini war. First Estate was curious as why Robson lawyers were trying to take the deposition of their own client and so soon after the mental evaluation. Robson lawyers’ initial response was that it was because Robson would be in CA for his mental evaluation and it would be a convenient time to get his deposition. Later on in their responses and in their opposition motion, they would mention how abuse victims tend to be high risk for suicide. However Robson lawyers would also state that Robson isn’t actually actively suicidal. Robson lawyers also said that they would only need one hour to depose Robson.
Understandably Estate wasn’t happy with Robson lawyers setting the deposition date without consulting and seeking an agreement from Estate and forcing the Estate to either depose Robson at that time or not at all. Estate expressed that they wanted to depose Robson after they get the mental examination report from their expert and have time to go over it. According to the court rules, expert doctor will have a month to prepare his report. According to the media, Estate is planning to depose Robson sometime in October.
Estate responded to Robson lawyers saying if they wanted to depose Robson on August 24[SUP]th[/SUP] as a precautionary measure, it was fine. Estate lawyers would show up to the deposition and listen. However Estate wanted to preserve their right to depose Robson at a later date, after they got the mental examination report.
Robson lawyers wouldn’t agree to any of it. They wouldn’t budge on August 24[SUP]th[/SUP] date. Robson lawyers would also say a person can only be deposed once in a case and for 7 hours. They would tell Estate lawyers, they better show up on August 24[SUP]th[/SUP] and be prepared to ask questions or they would forfeit their chance to depose Robson.
This prompted Estate to file a motion to preserve their right to depose Robson and depose him more than 7 hours if needed after they completed the necessary discovery and ready to proceed with the deposition.
Estate pointed out that Robson should not allowed to delay mental examination and then force Estate to take his deposition at a time his counsel perceives it to be strategically advantageous.
According to the case summary Estate’s request was granted. Media (THR) reported that August 24[SUP]th[/SUP] deposition didn’t happen and the deposition will be sometime in October. Apparently parties also arguing about whether to depose Robson at Hawaii or California.
In my personal opinion this was a very obvious tactic by the Robson lawyers to force Estate to depose Robson before they can get the mental examination report. Claiming they want to preserve Robson’s testimony because he is high risk for suicide but not actually suicidal doesn’t make any sense at this time. This case has been going on for 3+ years and Estate is planning to depose Robson in 2 months. If there was a suicide risk his deposition should have been brought up long ago. Furthermore if Robson lawyers were truly worried about preserving Robson’s testimony as a precaution, they could have taken their own deposition on the August 24[SUP]th[/SUP] regardless of when Estate takes Robson deposition. When judge granted Estate’s request and Robson lawyers weren’t able to force Estate to depose Robson unprepared, Robson lawyers suddenly gave up their desire to depose Robson and decided to wait until October.
Finally some tidbits:
- - Robson lawyers want to downplay significance of Robson’s deposition, calling it a “simple deposition”.
- According to the Estate however Robson’s deposition is “critical”
- - Robson family members will be deposed late September 2016.
- During discovery Estate have recived Robson's all medical and therapy records.
- - Robson mental examination will be done by Dr. Harrison Pope of Harvard University and McLean Hospital.
- - Estate is also planning to seek a mental evaluation for Safechuck if his case survives demurrer.
- - Safechuck is still represented by Gradstein and Marzano.
- - Robson lawyers are trying to find experts in the areas of Standards of Care as well as Psychiatry / Psychology.
- - Motions for summary judgment are due November 2016.
Note about the documents: Both motions had the Robson deposition notice and email exchange between the parties as exhibits. I only scanned those once to save time.