Quincy Jones sues Michael Jackson’s estate over royalties

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
I don't know:-(
Maybe Ivy knows or if the guy from Hollywood Reporter who posts info regarding court cases will post a update?
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Future Hearings

09/13/2016 at 08:30 am in department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference(DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO BIFURCATE/MOTION IN LIMINE)

10/11/2016 at 08:30 am in department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial

It looks like this case got pushed back?
Trial was scheduled to start 10/11 but now info in court website says Final status conference is on 11/14 and nothing about trial date?
Future Hearings
11/14/2016 at 08:30 am in department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference(CMC)
 

HIStoric

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
3,456
Points
48
^It has.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

Judge Michael Stern in September gave Jones the green light to pursue damages claims related to payment from permanent digital downloads. The producer is essentially arguing that he was shorted because Sony was underpaying MJJ, a song company controlled by the late artist's estate.
...
The issue boils down to whether Sony should have been treating those downloads as licenses instead of as sales — which would have given both Jackson's company and Jones more money. Artists get half of net revenue from licenses, but only a 15 percent royalty on sales. The payment of digital downloads is an area of continual conflict between artists and labels and has taken center stage in several major lawsuits in the past decade.
...
It remains to be seen exactly how long it will take for new attorneys to get up to speed and get a trial back on the books, but a status conference is currently scheduled for November.
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
You better read the whole article from above link.
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Pity that HR didn't write anything about plaintiffs motion to hold MJJ in contempt, it only says completed:-(
 

Goddess4Real

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
1,129
Points
0
Now he wants to sue the companies for "elder abuse" :no: Judge: Quincy Jones cannot expand $10M suit against late Michael Jackson’s companies http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2016/...suit-against-late-michael-jacksons-companies/

Quincy_Jones_and_the_Slaight_Family_Music_Lab_14167860742.jpg


A judge ruled Monday that producer Quincy Jones cannot expand his $10 million breach-of-contract lawsuit against one of the late Michael Jackson’s companies regarding projects released after the singer died.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Stern said the case is more than three years old and that Jones’ attorneys could have brought their proposed new cause of action for financial elder abuse against MJJ Productions much sooner.

“This is a Johnny-come-lately to say the least,” Stern said.

The judge also said Jones’ lawyers cannot add four more parties into the case as defendants, including John Branca, a former Jackson attorney who currently serves as co-executor of the singer’s estate.

The complaint, filed in October 2013, alleges two causes of action for breach of contract against MJJ productions and one cause of action for an accounting of royalties owed against Sony Music Entertainment.

Jones’ lawyers maintained that they could not bring the elder abuse allegation and the new parties into the case sooner because they only recently learned important new facts, including that royalties from the “This is It” film allegedly were disguised as profits and diverted to three Jackson estate entities: the Michael Jackson Co., MJJ Ventures and Triumph International. Those three entities were also proposed new defendants.

But Stern said he agreed with defense attorneys that revising the case at this stage would be prejudicial to their clients and force the lawyers to file a flurry of new motions. The judge also said he did not want to jeopardize the chance Jones’ case can go to trial ahead of other lawsuits because of the plaintiff’s age. Jones is 83.

“This is It” is a 2009 American documentary that traces Jackson’s rehearsals and preparation for his concert series of the same name that was originally scheduled to start on July 13, 2009, but was canceled due to his death 18 days prior of acute propofol intoxication at age 50.

Jones’ attorney, J. Michael Henningan, said after the hearing that despite the ruling, he believes his client can still seek punitive damages, but MJJ Productions attorney Jonathan Steinsapir said he thinks Jones is now barred from asking for such compensation.

Jones alleges that master recordings he worked on were wrongfully edited and remixed so as to deprive him of bonus profits. He also maintains he was denied credit for his work on the singer’s works released after his death.

Jones made agreements with Jackson in 1978 and 1985 for work on the singer’s solo albums in which the producer claims he was given the first opportunity to re-edit or remix any of the master recordings. He also maintains that the coupling of master recordings with other recordings required his permission and that was to be given producer credit for each of the master recordings.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
So he too changed law firm? No longer represented by Gradstein and Marzano it seems:

Jones’ attorney, J. Michael Henningan, said after the hearing that despite the ruling, he believes his client can still seek punitive damages
 

elusive moonwalker

Guest
"elder abuse"
-------------

Whats that supposed to be. Yeah michael abused you aswell !?? surprised he hasnt gone to wades new lawyers.

Money grabbing leech
 

morinen

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,074
Points
48
"elder abuse"
-------------

Whats that supposed to be. Yeah michael abused you aswell !?? surprised he hasnt gone to wades new lawyers.

Money grabbing leech

Breach of contract claims normally don't allow punitive damages; tort claims like "elder abuse" do. That was the most likely reason of trying to add a claim, not that Quincy really felt abused by Michael. Most likely, the new lawyer in the game is trying to raise the stakes, that's all. Although, with a $10m claim he should arguably be happy already.
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
Taking advantage of someone because they're "old and/or senile" can be considered elder abuse. I think that's a good argument, altho late.
Three years is too long to drag that case. All of these cases take years too long.
 

jaydom7

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,244
Points
0
glad the judge tossed that claim.. Quincy has been well compensated over the past 35 years for his production work on MJ's solo albums, Off the wall, Thriller and Bad.. He doesn't need any money.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Judge: No reason to dismiss Qunicy Jones lawsuit against Michael Jackson
POSTED BY DEBBIE L. SKLAR ON JANUARY 18, 2017 IN HOLLYWOOD | 269 VIEWS | LEAVE A RESPONSE

A judge Wednesday denied a motion by lawyers for one of Michael Jackson’s companies to dismiss about half of a multimillion-dollar breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by producer Quincy Jones.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Stern said there was nothing new in the motion by MJJ Productions Inc. that he had not seen in previous defense papers.

“It really is deja vu all over again,” Stern said.

The MJJ Productions motion asked for dismissal of portions of the breach of contract claims on grounds that there were no triable isues. But the judge said there is a “fundamental difference of opinion” over major issues that can only be resolved by a jury.

The complaint, filed in October 2013, alleges two causes of action for breach of contract against MJJ productions and one cause of action for an accounting of royalties owed against Sony Music Entertainment.

Among the allegations in the suit are that royalties from the film “This is It” were allegedly disguised as profits and diverted to three Jackson estate entities: the Michael Jackson Co., MJJ Ventures and Triumph International.

“This is It” is a 2009 documentary that traces Jackson’s rehearsals and preparation for a series of London concerts that never happened. The singer died in Los Angeles on June 25, 2009 — 18 days prior to the tour’s start date – – of a drug overdose at age 50.

Jones, now 83, also alleges that master recordings he worked on were wrongfully edited and remixed so as to deprive him of bonus profits. The 28- time Grammy winner also maintains he was denied credit for his work on the singer’s works released after his death.

Jones made agreements with Jackson in 1978 and 1985 for work on the singer’s solo albums in which the producer claims he was given the first opportunity to re-edit or remix any of the master recordings. He also maintains that the coupling of master recordings with other recordings required his permission and that was to be given producer credit for each of the master recordings.

Trial is scheduled Feb. 21.
 

Annita

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,632
Points
83
Starts the trial really at Feb. 21th. IRS-trial isn`t over and I assume Weitzmann will also be present in this trial.
 

Goddess4Real

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
1,129
Points
0
Thanks for the latest.....I wonder if Quincy is gonna be a witness in the MJ Estate v IRS trial as well?
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Starts the trial really at Feb. 21th. IRS-trial isn`t over and I assume Weitzmann will also be present in this trial.

It got pushed back
05/15/2017 at 08:30 am in department 62 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,017
Points
83
God I'm tired of so much legal issues surrounding Michael... no wonder why Michael put his hands up and had others handle it.. (which also created issues) but no 1 person could handle this all
 

Goddess4Real

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
1,129
Points
0
God I'm tired of so much legal issues surrounding Michael... no wonder why Michael put his hands up and had others handle it.. (which also created issues) but no 1 person could handle this all

And all for the love of $$$$$$$$$$$$

 

Annita

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,632
Points
83
http://www.***********/quincy-jones-cant-dq-atty-expert-in-jackson-royalty-row/

Quincy Jones Can’t DQ Atty Expert In Jackson Royalty Row

April 12, 2017 • By Admin Team

Law360, Los Angeles (April 11, 2017, 10:51 PM EDT) — A California judge on Tuesday rejected Quincy Jones’ request to disqualify an attorney expert designated by Sony and Michael Jackson’s production company in Jones’ $10 million royalty battle, saying there wasn’t a “factual basis” showing the attorney was privy to confidential information when his former firm represented Jones.

Jones’ suit alleges that MJJ Productions Inc., which is controlled by Jackson’s estate, and Sony cheated him out of royalties for the soundtrack to “This Is It” — the documentary about the King of Pop released just months after Jackson’s 2009 death — and the Cirque du Soleil show featuring music from three Jackson albums Jones produced: “Off the Wall,” “Thriller” and “Bad.”

In March, Jones moved to have the court disqualify one of the experts MJJ Productions planned to use, Eisner Jaffe attorney Owen Sloan, on the ground that his prior law firm, Mason & Sloan, previously represented Jones in connection with one of the producer agreements at issue in the litigation and other related matters.

On Tuesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Stern denied the request, after MJJ’s attorney argued that the other attorney in the two-partner firm handled Jones’ representation exclusively and there was no evidence that Sloan ever worked on the music producer’s matters.

“There’s just the lack of factual basis to show that he received or there was sharing of confidential information,” the judge said.

An attorney for Jones, Caroline M. Walters of McKool Smith Hennigan PC, argued that it was up to MJJP to prove that Sloan wasn’t exposed to Jones’ confidential information.

“The reality is it was a two-lawyer office,” Walters told the court. “Lawyers are likely to talk about their caseloads.”

Judge Stern asked Walters if she was citing facts or just “inferences and deductions.”

The attorney said there was no dispute of fact that Mason & Sloan represented Jones in connection with a 1978 agreement with The Jackson Five.

“For all we know they were sitting in the same office. They say they don’t recall talking to each other 40 years ago, that’s not sufficient,” Walters said. “It’s their burden to come forward with the evidence to establish that there was no reasonable likelihood at all that Mr. Sloan received confidential information.”

The suit, first filed in 2013, is scheduled to go to trial next month.

Jones worked with Jackson over the course of a decade, from 1978 to the late ’80s, on the three albums, which were among Jackson’s most successful.

The 27-time Grammy winner said that with each project, he entered into a contract with MJJ for royalties on the use of the songs and to protect the songs from being edited or remixed without his express approval and supervision, according to the suit. After Jackson’s death, the flurry of productions created to capitalize on the renewed interest in the King of Pop breached those contracts, Jones alleges.

MJJ released soundtracks to support the Cirque du Soleil production created in Jackson’s honor and for the “This Is It” film, which went on to become the highest-grossing music documentary of all time. But MJJ distributed the albums on its own label, not through Sony, to avoid paying royalties to the producer, Jones alleges.




Additionally, the tracks were edited for the film, something Jones says is explicitly prohibited by his contract, which requires that any editing or remixing be done by Jones himself.

Jones is seeking damages for breach of contract claims, for remixing fees he claims he would have been paid if he had been engaged to remix the masters in the various projects, the “value” of the resulting producer credit and unpaid royalties on the masters he claims were coupled without his consent.

Last year, Judge Stern denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, putting the case on the path for trial.

Quincy Jones is represented by Robert E. Allen and Caroline M. Walters of McKool Smith and Henry Gradstein of Gradstein & Marzano PC.

MJJ Productions Inc. and Sony Music Entertainment are represented by Tami Kameda Sims and Zia F. Modabber of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, and Howard Weitzman and Jonathan Steinsapir of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP.

The case is Quincy Jones et al. v. MJJ Productions Inc. et al., case number BC525803, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

SOURCE: Law360
 

Annita

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,632
Points
83
So the trial starts today or is there another delay?
 
Top