Latest on MJJC

Men Claim Share of Michael Jackson's Estate (Broderick Morris and Quadree El-Amin)

On what grounds was it tossed? Statute of limitations? Yeah, for Katherine to join was a bad decision...
 
morinen said:
On what grounds was it tossed? Statute of limitations? Yeah, for Katherine to join was a bad decision...
Click to expand...

This is a probate claim, counter 850 motion and a civil lawsuit. The ruling happened under probate and I expect soon a copy of it will be filed at the civil case to get it dismissed as well.

But right now the only available information is TMZ.

It sounds like statute of limitations - specifically the 1 year to bring a creditor claim rule. Per my previous posts, it wasn't until 2012 that El-amin sent an inspection demand to MJ estate, they didn't file a lawsuit until 2013 and Bain did not join until 2014. As far as the probate goes both 2012 and 2014 would be too late to file a claim if you go with the one year rule.

As far as the credibility goes, they claimed at 3 AM at a hotel in Japan Michael gave them these shares. Bain is the one who incorporated the MJ Company and apparently that documents only listed Michael as the sole owner. Why didn't she register her rights back then? I'm guessing that's what Judge meant by why not try to get it when Michael was alive.

Bain filed another claim against MJ Estate and she never ever claimed ownership at this company back then. At that claim, after the lost it, she found a letter saying Michael didn't fire her. That judge didn't believe her either as she never ever mentioned such document before. This is the second time years later she was able to find allegedly signed by Michael document that she never mentioned before. It seems a little too convenient.

So you got the similar situation here. Despite claiming Michael gave them shares at the company, Bain never mentioned those share during incorporation of MJ Company. They made no claims against Michael when alive. Bain did not mention her shares at the company at her initial claim lawsuit. Then they suddenly started making claims in 2012 - 2014.

Honestly what's the reasonable explanation for Bain not registering their alleged shares in the company when she herself incorporated the company in the first place?
 
Last edited:
I wonder why it took three years to dismiss the case if it was a plain SOL issue plus all these credibility problems.
 
So this is probably why the cubs have been keeping a real close eye on katherine...hmmm
 
Yessss? so this means the civil case will be thrown aswell
 
So one of the 4 plaintiffs is Katherine? Am I understanding this correctly? Is this a rumour or fact?
And is this the reason she is in London at the moment? So that courts won't get a hold of her?
Sorry, but all those trials are so confusing.
 
Kj wanted to add herself to the lawsuit she filed papers. I maybe wrong but i dont think shes one of the actual four mentioned? Anyone?
 
morinen said:
I wonder why it took three years to dismiss the case if it was a plain SOL issue plus all these credibility problems.
Click to expand...

Estate filed the 850 motion in 2013 - 850 motion was asking the probate court to determine the owner of the MJ Company.
El-Amin etc filed a competing civil lawsuit. (and probably a creditor claim as well)
First there was motions to determine which one takes priority. It was ruled the probate one would. But that took some time.
Then El-Amin etc challenged Beckloff and wanted to remove him as the judge - which they succeeded
Then there was discovery, motions etc
Then there was the judge trial in early 2016 followed by post trial briefs etc
Then they were waiting for a ruling and the judge temporarily got assigned to the appellate court

I guess the events, 850 motion or the civil case, challenge of Beckloff, the other judge's temporary assignment etc are the main elements that caused the most delay.

maja said:
So one of the 4 plaintiffs is Katherine?
Click to expand...

No. The 4 plaintiffs are El-Amin, Morris, Bain and King. Katherine asked to join and she would have been the 5th plaintiff. But the judge at civil case did not decide whether she can join or not. Assuming the civil case will get successful dismissed due to the 850 probate ruling, it will become moot.

Am I understanding this correctly? Is this a rumour or fact?
Click to expand...

It's a fact that she asked to join this case. I posted the court documents.
 
I must have missed or forgot that Beckloff was removed. What judge made this ruling?
Glad it got tossed for credibility. Wish Robson and Safechuck would get dismissed for the same.
 
The same statue of limitation rule applies to the civil suit?
 
So I think Kathrine will soon come back from London.
 
barbee0715 said:
I must have missed or forgot that Beckloff was removed. What judge made this ruling?
Click to expand...

Judge Maria Stratton

elusive moonwalker said:
The same statue of limitation rule applies to the civil suit?
Click to expand...

The civil lawsuit is a breach of contract lawsuit but if Michael - and now his Estate - is the 100% owner of the company there can't be any breach of contract. I'm not sure how exactly it will work. But the cases were determined to be related and the civil case was put on hold pending the probate 850 motion. I'm assuming now the Estate will file a copy of the 850 motion ruling and will try to get the civil case dismissed.
 
Oh, so it went all the way in probate. That explains it, thanks Ivy
 
So the judge ruled mj was 100% owner. Thanks didnt realise that.thought the ruling was just based on the limitations
 
again we will see more details once the ruling becomes public but the 850 motion Estate filed under probate was asking the court to determine the ownership of the MJ Company- that it was owned 100% by Michael.

There was discovery, a bench trial with a single judge etc. So whether or not they can make a claim etc might all be brought up during that. And judges tend to list any and all reasons to dismiss a case. So her ruling might be like "I don't find your claims credible and even if I did you are too late".
 
Well she is not in London because she has fear for Trent but because her cubs can control her and made her sign a motion to join the suit.
 
Great News!

Why do i get the feeling that the judge didn't want to deal with KJ and all her baggage by issuing the ruling a few days just before a hearing on her motion to join?

Anyhow this is a good riddance of the parasites. Raymond Bain has been a disgrace. she's still unemployed since being dumped by MJ in 2008 and has been trying ever since all kinds of tricks to get back on the gravy train. ditto for Randy & co who have been left out of the will. the reality is sinking in real fast. KJ lost control of Prince and Paris allowances since the day they turn 18. so she has less money to dish out to the curbs. it will only get worse from now on. In less than 3 years (feb 2020) she will lose control of blanket allowance if she's still alive by then. right now KJ has no leverage whatsoever. so it's no surprise that the curbs are trying to gain control of the money purse quickly, by conspiring against Trent, before it's over for good.

Next is tohme tohme. and i'm sure the estate can't wait to put him in his place.
 
passy001 said:
Great News!

Why do i get the feeling that the judge didn't want to deal with KJ and all her baggage by issuing the ruling a few days just before a hearing on her motion to join?

Anyhow this is a good riddance of the parasites. Raymond Bain has been a disgrace. she's still unemployed since being dumped by MJ in 2008 and has been trying ever since all kinds of tricks to get back on the gravy train. ditto for Randy & co who have been left out of the will. the reality is sinking in real fast. KJ lost control of Prince and Paris allowances since the day they turn 18. so she has less money to dish out to the curbs. it will only get worse from now on. In less than 3 years (feb 2020) she will lose control of blanket allowance if she's still alive by then. right now KJ has no leverage whatsoever. so it's no surprise that the curbs are trying to gain control of the money purse quickly, by conspiring against Trent, before it's over for good.

Next is tohme tohme. and i'm sure the estate can't wait to put him in his place.
Click to expand...

I agree.....I hope all the money grubbing parasites (Thome, Robson etc) get what they deserve........NOTHING!
 
passy001 said:
Why do i get the feeling that the judge didn't want to deal with KJ and all her baggage by issuing the ruling a few days just before a hearing on her motion to join?
Click to expand...

different judges though.

Stratton ruled on the 850 probate motion Estate brought.

Katherine is trying to join to the civil case filed by El-Amin, Bain etc. in which the judge is Michael P. Linfield

-------------------------------------------

btw TMZ updated their story with a quote from Weitzman

Howard Weitzman, lawyer for the MJ Estate, tells TMZ, "This was a frivolous and outrageous case and these claimants got what they deserved -- which was nothing."
 
barbee0715 said:
I must have missed or forgot that Beckloff was removed. What judge made this ruling?
Glad it got tossed for credibility. Wish Robson and Safechuck would get dismissed for the same.
Click to expand...

To say the least.
I like how Weitzman reacted to the ruling.

Just what Safechuck and Robson and Jane Doe deserve, nothing.
But this went on for three years, probably cost tens of thousands if not more. The plaintiffs have to pay the Estate's legal fees?
 
Last edited:
Seemingly the estate is against KJ intervene thingy.

04/06/2017 Points and Authorities (IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING KATHERINE JACKSON TO INTERVENE )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

04/06/2017 Request for Judicial Notice (IN SUPPORT OF DEFTS JOHN BRANCA AND JOHN MC CLAIM'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING KATHERING JACKSON TO INTERVENE )
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
 
Michael Jackson’s mom tentatively sidelined in lawsuit against her late son’s estate
POSTED BY TONI MCALLISTER ON APRIL 18, 2017 IN HOLLYWOOD | 49 VIEWS | LEAVE A RESPONSE

Gates to Neverland Ranch of the Estate of Michael Jackson. Photo by Shazari (Neverland Ranch) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
Gates to Neverland Ranch of the estate of Michael Jackson. Photo by Shazari (Neverland Ranch) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
Michael Jackson‘s mother cannot intervene as a plaintiff in a lawsuit brought against her late son’s estate by four people who maintain they had interests in a company the singer created before his 2009 death, a judge tentatively ruled Tuesday.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Linfield is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday before issuing a final ruling on Katherine Jackson’s motion.

Lawyers for the Jackson estate maintain the estate owns 100 percent of the Michael Jackson Co. because the singer was the sole owner when he was alive.

However, in her court papers, the 86-year-old Jackson family matriarch agrees with the other claimants that she has a 10 percent interest in the entity. She says the executors, John Branca and John McClain, “failed to properly apprise her” of the proceedings.

“Mrs. Jackson has a right to intervene in this action to protect her 10 percent ownership interest in TMJC,” her lawyer, Ryan Baker, stated in his court papers. “Any resolution of this matter without Mrs. Jackson’s participation will impair her ability to protect her ownership interest in the TMJC.”

Baker further argued that his client was not able to try to become a plaintiff in the case earlier because she was only recently informed about the proceedings. Baker’s court papers do not identify who told her about the case other than to state it was not the executors.

Attorneys for Qadree El-Amin, Broderick Morris, Raymone Bain and Adean King maintain that their clients collectively own about 15 percent of the company under a 3 a.m. deal Jackson made with them in a Tokyo hotel room on June 1, 2006.

The four claimants say it was Jackson’s idea to form the company and that he reserved 75 ownership for himself; 10 percent each for his mother and Bain, his general manager; and 1.68 percent each for El-Amin, Morris and King.

Judge Maria Stratton heard testimony in the claimants’ case during a non-jury, probate court trial that began in late 2015. She ruled March 27 that the Jackson estate owns 100 percent of TMJC.

The quartet’s lawsuit, which was separate from the probate action, was put on hold pending the outcome of the probate court proceedings. In his tentative ruling, Linfield said the civil case will remain stayed for now and that a status conference is scheduled before him on May 25.

The lawsuit was filed in May 2013 by El-Amin and Morris. Bain and King joined the case as plaintiffs later.

King worked at the time for Bain, who testified in a sworn declaration that she met Michael Jackson through tennis star Serena Williams. El-Amin was the manager of the R&B vocal group Boyz II Men, and Morris was the chief operating officer of Positive Productions Inc., a Japan-based company that promoted concerts and other events in that country.

The four maintain they tried to help the singer recharge his career through public appearances, performing on tour and making more music.

He died from an overdose on June 25, 2009, at age 50.

–City News Service
 
Copy of judge's tentative ruling

Case Number: BC508258 Hearing Date: April 19, 2017 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to intervene

Moving Party: Third-party Katherine Jackson (“Mrs. Jackson”)

Resp. Party: Defendants John Branca and John McClain, executors of the Estate of Michael J. Jackson (“defendants”)



The motion by Mrs. Katherine Jackson to intervene is DENIED.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452(d).)


BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs Broderick Morris and Qadree El-Amin commenced this action on 5/7/13 against defendants John Branca and John McClain, executors of the estate of Michael J. Jackson, for breach of contract and accounting. On 1/8/14, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and accounting. The action pertains to business dealings between the plaintiffs and the late Michael Jackson (“Jackson”), specifically, the formation of a new company, The Michael Jackson Company (“TMJC”). There is a dispute as to the parties’ ownership interests in TMJC.

On 4/14/14, the Court granted defendants’ motion for abatement. The instant action was abated until there was a final adjudication in the Probate Court of an 850 petition in BP117321. On March 27, 2017, the Probate Court issued its ruling on the section 850 petition, finding that the “Estate of Michael Jackson is the sole member of the Michael Jackson Company, LLC.” (Opposition, Exh. A, p. 2.)

This action remains abated; there is a Status Conference re the Probate Matter scheduled for May 25, 2017 in this department.


ANALYSIS:

“Upon timely application, any person, who has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, may intervene in the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387(a).) “f the person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property to transaction which is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties, the court shall, upon timely application, permit that person to intervene.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387(b).) “But a proposed intervenor's interest is insufficient ‘when the action in which intervention is sought does not directly affect it although the results of the action may indirectly benefit or harm its owner.’ ” (Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶ 2:418.1 [quoting Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1505].) Code of Civil Procedure section 387 is to be constructed liberally in favor of intervention. (Weil & Brown, ¶ 4:419.)

“Leave to intervene may be granted at any time — even after judgment has been rendered — if the court finds the application was ‘timely’ under the circumstances, and intervention is otherwise appropriate.” (Weil & Brown, ¶ 2:440 [citing Mallick v. Sup.Ct. (County of Marin) (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 437].) An application for intervention must be “timely” made. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 387(a).) “[W]hat is and is not ‘timely’ ultimately rests in the court’s discretion. Unreasonable delay after learning of the action or the ground for intervention may therefore result in denial of leave to intervene: ‘Aside from the statutory limitation ... it is the general rule that a right to intervene should be asserted within a reasonable time and that the intervenor must not be guilty of an unreasonable delay after knowledge of the suit.’ ” (Weil & Brown, ¶ 2:439 [citing Allen v. California Water & Tel. Co. (1947) 31 Cal.2d 104, 108]. See also Noya v. A.W. Coulter Trucking (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 838, 842-843 [court exercised discretion to deny leave to intervene where the proposed intervener took no steps to intervene until after several years and after the parties had reached a settlement agreement, because allowing intervention could delay or impede the resolution of the action].)

“A trial court has discretion to deny intervention even when a ‘direct interest’ is shown, if the interests of the original litigants outweigh the intervenor's concerns. For example, intervention will not be allowed when it would retard the principal suit, or require a reopening of the case for further evidence, or delay the trial of the action, or change the position of the original parties.” (Weil & Brown, ¶ 2:420.) Where intervention is permissive and not as of right, it is improper if it would enlarge the issues of the case. (Id., ¶ 4:436.)

The request to intervene is based on Mrs. Jackson’s asserted ownership interest in TMJC. (See Jackson Decl., ¶¶ 1-3.) Though this is likely sufficient to show a direct interest in the ownership issue, the ownership issue is no longer before the Court in this action. In ruling on the motion for abatement in April 2014, the Court noted that the section 850 petition and the instant action both sought determination of the issue of the ownership interests in TMJC. (See Minute Order 4/14/14, pp. 4-5.) As Mrs. Jackson herself states, “In the 850 Petition, Defendants Branca and McClain claimed that the Estate owned 100 percent of TMJC and thus the Estate was entitled to a judicial declaration that the Estate is TMJC's sole owner.” (Motion, p. 3:12-13.)

The Court granted the motion for abatement, and ruled that the instant action was abated until there is a final adjudication of the section 850 petition. (Id., p. 7.) Therefore, the instant action has been stayed and the issue of the ownership interests in TMJC was to be determined in the section 850 petition. To the extent that Mrs. Jackson is seeking to intervene on the ownership issue, her motion for intervention should have been made in the section 850 action. Whether or not she can make such a motion in the section 850 action – and whether to not any such motion should be granted – are issues to be decided by the Probate Court, not by this department.

The motion by Mrs. Katherine Jackson to intervene in this action is DENIED.
 
Thanks ivy just a matter of time before the civil case is thrown
 
Annita said:
Well she is not in London because she has fear for Trent but because her cubs can control her and made her sign a motion to join the suit.
Click to expand...

I think you were right:
04/19/2017 Notice (OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING KATHERINE JACKSON TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT )
Filed by Atty for Pltf in Intervention

If I read that right, it looks like she pulled out from the case?
 
Bubs said:
I think you were right:
04/19/2017 Notice (OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING KATHERINE JACKSON TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT )
Filed by Atty for Pltf in Intervention

If I read that right, it looks like she pulled out from the case?
Click to expand...

Thanks.....back to square one for those cubs.
 
Ivy?
@Ivy_4MJ
Qadree El-Amin, Broderick Morris, Raymone Bain & Adean King is appealing Judge's decision about MJ Company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top