Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"
Is it true that defamation lawsuit can only apply to living persons?
Yes. If the MJJ Estate could litigate on these grounds, I am certain they would have already done so, as evidenced by their very speedy contractual non-disparagement claim. (ie they have shown that if they can litigate R and S - and I am sure this applies anywhere in the world - they WILL).
Maybe not necessarily relevant to this but why the **** haven't they paid the estate yet?
I'm not from the USA, but searching for information about civil appeals, this is what what US websites say (fairly sure this applies to California):
''If the basis for your appeal is that the judgment amount is excessive or that the opposing party was wrongfully granted the judgment, you should be able to obtain a stay of the judgment. The court will grant the terms of the stay, meaning that the court can set a specific date for the stay, conditions, and requirements that certain personal information be revealed in order for the stay of judgment to take place. To obtain a stay of judgment for a financial award during an appeal, you are usually required to file a bond that guarantees payment of a money award or otherwise indemnifies the party originally awarded damages.''
https://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/apeal_delay_judgment.htm
So I'm assuming that R and S have requested not to pay their claims judgements until the appeal is settled.
Which led me on to this:
From earlier posts in this thread (about 4-5 pages back?) I understand that Reed started to film the interviews for Robson and Safechuck in February 2017. However, Safechuck's civil claim was not dismissed until 28 June 2017, and Robson's was dismissed on 19th December 2017. So their appeals must both have been lodged in early 2018? (I couldn't find a date...)
I wonder if the Estate might be able to make a claim against the R and S legal firm for a 'vexatious appeal' (I think it might be difficult for Finaldi et al to say that they did not know that R and S were involved in making this film before their legal appeals were lodged??)?
I'm not clear on the timescale for making such a claim about an appeal.
Here's what a law site says about vexatious appeals California:
''The California Supreme Court finds frivolity when: (1) an appeal is prosecuted for an improper motive (to harass or delay); or (2) any reasonable attorney would agree that the appeal is totally and completely without merit. (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650.) While the Flaherty standard has been around for a long time and is stated in the disjunctive, more recent decisions demonstrate that on the rare occasion when appeals are determined to be frivolous, evidence of improper motive and complete lack of merit are usually both present.''
https://www.appellateinsight.com/2017/04/03/frivolous-appeals/
I'm sure the Estate would be able to claim both grounds for such a finding, as Judge Beckloff was clear in both dismissals that MJ had 'absolute control' over the MJJ companies, and there was no debate to be had about that. The fact that R and S were making a film before the appeal was lodged, does seem to me to imply that the appeal was made in order to allow time to 'harass' the Estate.
(But I am not a lawyer, and there seem to be 'difficult' rules about lodging claims against appeals).
If the Estate has made / could make a claim that the R and S appeal is frivolous / vexatious, it would potentially increase the costs that R and S would have to pay for their appeals, and maybe add 'damages'.
