Quincy Jones sues Michael Jackson’s estate over royalties

[ivy]

It's a civil case which is separate than the probate case as of now. Sometimes Estate makes a related case filing and gets the cases transfered to the probate court. We'll wait and see.

 

[Petrarose]

^^Oh Thanks for the information.

 

[Annita]

I`m curios about a update her. Is there any response from the Estate in legal documents?

 

[ivy]

nothing yet. it's just that the lawsuit is filed and Estate is served. Nothing more.

 

[ivy]

From BX of INSANITY NEXXXT

Case Number: BC525803
QUINCY JONES VS MJJ PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL

The defendants filed an application for peremptory disqualification of the judge, Suzanne G. Bruguera, according to CCP 170.6, see screenshot attached.

"Peremptory Challenges
Timeliness is the touchstone for motions to disqualify judges on a peremptory basis under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Assuming the motion is timely, the judge must disqualify himself or herself. If the motion is untimely, the motion should be denied. The rules in this area of law with respect to both civil and criminal cases are substantially the same. See McClenny v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 677, 685.
All that is required for a peremptory challenge is a declaration under oath that the judge is "prejudiced against the party (or his or her attorney) or the interest of the party (or his or her attorney) so that affiant cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge." Code of Civ. Proc., section 170.6(a)(5). So long as a timely declaration is made substantially stating the quoted language above, the judge has no recourse but to disqualify himself or herself... Only one peremptory challenge is permitted per side unless substantially adverse interests between multiple parties are established." -BX

 

[Petrarose]

Ivy did they say why they want her disqualified. Is she related to someone or worked with Quincy in some capacity before? There is that Gradstein name again.

 

[ivy]

^^
sorry no other information available

 

[Bubs]

Could that CCP 170.6 filed for attorney Gradstein?

I found this and it does mention attorney:http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CCP/3/1/2/3/s170.6

It would make sense that it is for Gradstein as he is highly prejudiced because he is Wade's attorney.

 

[Petrarose]

Could that CCP 170.6 filed for attorney Gradstein?

I found this and it does mention attorney:http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CCP/3/1/2/3/s170.6

It would make sense that it is for Gradstein as he is highly prejudiced because he is Wade's attorney.

Bubs that made sense and I thought of that, but it says "disqualify judges" ..that the judge is prejudiced against the person or the attorney above. There should definitely be one against Henry too though.

 

[Bubs]

Oh I see. What is the name of the judge, it is not mentioned in the case or in any documents?

I wonder if the same judge is handling other cases for estate, or against the estate?

 

[ivy]

^^

It is for the judge and the name is Soussan Bruguera

 

[Bubs]

^^

It is for the judge and the name is Soussan Bruguera

Thanks Ivy.

Could this be the reason the estate asking her dismissal
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/57579/los-angeles-judge-to-decide-jackson-lawsuit
and she was the judge in secret taping case too.

I'm not sure how the law works, but I was wondering if this is the case her being a judge in older MJ cases, and if it can be seen as prejudiced?

 

[ivy]

Could be and your guess is as good (or even better than) mine. the only thing the court document shows MJ Estate (as MJJ Productions) asking to disqualify the judge. No other information given.

 

[Petrarose]

Bubs do you know what the judge's ruling is. I looked at the link but it does not say. When you say secret taping do you mean the taping in the airplane when Michael was with his counsel?

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Could this cause the dismissal of the lawsuit?

 

[Petrarose]

^^They just find another judge.

 

[Bubs]

Bubs do you know what the judge's ruling is. I looked at the link but it does not say. When you say secret taping do you mean the taping in the airplane when Michael was with his counsel?

Do you mean in Avaram case? Judge didn't need to rule anything as the case was settled.
This judge in question was the judge in this case too:
http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/state/20040322-1258-ca-michaeljackson.html

 

[Petrarose]

Bubs when Avaram went to the judge and say that Michael should pay up to 9 million after they settled for 6 million, did this judge make any ruling or did the parties simple decided to stick to the 6 million settlement? I think in the link you gave before Avaram's attorney was complaining to the judge after the 6 million settlement.

Now with the taping, Michael had a favorable outcome in that case. The airline was found liable, so why would the estate want this judge to be removed due to this case? Could there be something else?

 

[Bubs]

I wasn't thinking as far as you did. I thought if it is a case that this judge cannot be objective because she has been judge so many cases that involved MJ?

I found this:
So they’ll step aside in several instances. If the judge:

Is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of a party in the lawsuit
Is a party to the lawsuit
Is a material witness in the lawsuit
Was previously involved in the case (for example, he was a party's lawyer)
Prepared the contract, lease or will involved in the case
Is an appeals court judge and was the trial judge in the same case
Has a personal or financial interest in the outcome
Believes, for whatever reason, that he or she cannot be impartial
These factors are similar because they are specific and involve a direct connection between the judge and the case.

http://research.lawyers.com/Well-Recuse-Me-When-a-Judge-Shouldnt-Try-a-Case.html

It says previously involved the case, so I loosely translate it that involved any case relating to MJ

 

[Petrarose]

Bubs I see it as meaning involved in the same case-- it states "...in the case." Well trying to figure out the reason is a bit interesting--sort of like hide and seek.

 

[Bubs]

Bubs I see it as meaning involved in the same case-- it states "...in the case." Well trying to figure out the reason is a bit interesting--sort of like hide and seek.

I know, I imagined if there is a reason that this judge has been involved too many cases involving MJ that she cannot be impartial

We should have direct way to communicate with the estate so we can ask these things :cheeky:

 

[ivy]

We should have direct way to communicate with the estate so we can ask these things :cheeky:

From experience I can say that : Online team doesn't know and Estate doesn't comment on ongoing legal matters.

 

[Bubs]

I know Ivy.
They should comment and had interaction with us, it would save from us a lot of speculation and grey hairs

 

[Petrarose]

It is a pity we don't have a retired LA fan who was a lawyer and likes to hang around the courts. That person could attend all the court hearing/trials and give us some feedback. The person would still have time to play bingo and all the other fun things retirees do.

 

[qbee]

From experience I can say that : Online team doesn't know and Estate doesn't comment on ongoing legal matters.

I would add very wisely they do not discuss or comment on ongoing legal matter and especially not with fans.

 

[Kerry Hennigan]

I don't understand why, but the story about this case has just appeared under the MJJC news items dated 28 Jan 2014 - but it appears to be the same story as originally posted here, with the same quote from the Estate. Has there been a new development, does anyone know?

 

[ivy]

^^

I can deliver on that.

Estate actually did their initial answer to Quincy Jones complait a short while ago. In the answer they deny Quincy Jones claims and list the following affirmative defenses :

- failure to state a cause of action
- lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- federal preemption (US Copyright act 17 U.S.C. 301)
- unclean hands
- estoppel
- laches
- waiver
- prevention / frustration of performance
- failure to mitigate damages
- failure to submit creditor's claim
- statue of limitations
- reservation of rights to add mode affirmative defenses

 

[Bubs]

What happen to issue defendants wanted to disqualify judge overseeing this case or is it related to that "unclean hands" thingy?


01/03/2014 CCP 170.6 Application Filed
Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

01/14/2014 Ex-Parte Application (TO REQUEST THE COURT TO SUA SPONTE RECONSIDER ITS RULING ON DEFT'S DISQUSALIFICATION MOTION PURSUANT TO 170.6 )
Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

If I read this right, the estate didn't get judge to be disqualified?

I found definition for "unclean hands" but it doesn't look like it is related to dismissal judge:
unclean hands n. a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants, which must be proved by the defendant. Example: Hank Hardnose sues Grace Goodenough for breach of contract for failure to pay the full amount for construction of an addition to her house which she admits. The court denies any relief to Hardnose when Goodenough proves that Hardnose had shown her faked estimates from subcontractors to justify his original bid to Goodenough. (See: affirmative defense)

 

[ivy]

If I read this right, the estate didn't get judge to be disqualified?

yeah seems like it

I found definition for "unclean hands" but it doesn't look like it is related to dismissal judge:

no those aren't related to the judge. That's their initial answer to the complaint. What happens is when a party gets served with a complain they do an initial answer shortly. It includes - generally - denial of all the claims and possible defenses. It is just a list now meaning for example only have listed as "defendant doesn't have a claim due to their actions based on unclean hands doctrine". Details will come later when they do a full and detailed reply and probably a motion to dismiss.

As of now we can see that they think Quincy doesn't have a claim, there's a jurisdiction issue, a federal law, Quincy's actions means he doesn't have a claim, he did not list a damages amount, statue of limitations has run out and he did not file a creditors claim.

 

[Justthefacts]

yeah seems like it

no those aren't related to the judge. That's their initial answer to the complaint. What happens is when a party gets served with a complain they do an initial answer shortly. It includes - generally - denial of all the claims and possible defenses. It is just a list now meaning for example only have listed as "defendant doesn't have a claim due to their actions based on unclean hands doctrine". Details will come later when they do a full and detailed reply and probably a motion to dismiss.

As of now we can see that they think Quincy doesn't have a claim, there's a jurisdiction issue, a federal law, Quincy's actions means he doesn't have a claim, he did not list a damages amount, statue of limitations has run out and he did not file a creditors claim.

I wonder if Jones is going to say he was unable and unwilling to say he was owed cash