PoP
Proud Member
Lightbringer;4258979 said:HBO WINS FIRST ROUND IN MICHAEL JACKSON ESTATE’S ‘LEAVING NEVERLAND’ LAWSUIT
SOURCE: Hollywood Reporter
AH! That federal judge is an @$$!
Lightbringer;4258979 said:HBO WINS FIRST ROUND IN MICHAEL JACKSON ESTATE’S ‘LEAVING NEVERLAND’ LAWSUIT
SOURCE: Hollywood Reporter
Lightbringer;4258979 said:HBO WINS FIRST ROUND IN MICHAEL JACKSON ESTATE’S ‘LEAVING NEVERLAND’ LAWSUIT
SOURCE: Hollywood Reporter
WannaScream;4258995 said:Some people seem a bit more optimistic and not looking at this as a win/lose scenario.
I disagree with some of it. I don't see this as a win for HBO. To me (and I'm not an attorney) it looks like the Judge is trying to decide who should decide the case, an arbitrator or a judge.<script src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8" async=""></script>
— andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) 29 May 2019
Kingofpop4ever3000;4258998 said:I knew this was going to happen. So I’m not surprised. Everything has to be a long, drag-out fight giving Michael’s supporters nothing except more grief while people who hate him continue to dance on his grave. This is why I have such a low opinion of judges when Michael Jackson and his legacy are the subject. I’m sorry to be doom and gloom. But I have seen this happen with Michael more times then I want to remember. And I would love to be wrong about this.
Where we stand now so i share this with other fans?
https://www.scribd.com/document/411772438/Estate-v-HBO-Ruling-5-28-19Because the Court has not yet decided whether it or the arbitrator will decide arbitrability, it will hold off from addressing the arguments in regards to the arbitrability issue.
While the Agreement may establish the Los Angeles County Superior Court as the only venue that has the authority to resolve a dispute about which arbitrator to select when there is a continued conflict between the parties and their surrogates on that point, the plain language of the Arbitration Provision does not support a finding that the parties intended that court to be the only forum for other disputes. The parties’ instant disagreement is not about who should serve as the arbitrator, but rather whether arbitration should be compelled in the first instance.Therefore, the Court would deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
The justice system threw Wade's case out, they saw it for the BS it was, so I want to have faith in a good outcome here as well.
I want to say it's unbelievable if HBO wins it all, but what if that deal between MJ and HBO indeed did expire a while ago? That's what HBO is arguing isn't it?
I'm worried about this case. I don't think the estate has a strong defence and let's be clear they are not suing HBO because of the documentary they are suing because of a contractual obligation. My question is, because that contract was made when Michael was obliviously alive, now he is dead, will that contract be void because it wouldn't serve any other purpose.
I'm worried about this case. I don't think the estate has a strong defence and let's be clear they are not suing HBO because of the documentary they are suing because of a contractual obligation. My question is, because that contract was made when Michael was obliviously alive, now he is dead, will that contract be void because it wouldn't serve any other purpose.
Wait? so what the whole point of this case in the first place? if they not suing HBO then....???? what point of this?
I'm worried about this case. I don't think the estate has a strong defence and let's be clear they are not suing HBO because of the documentary they are suing because of a contractual obligation. My question is, because that contract was made when Michael was obliviously alive, now he is dead, will that contract be void because it wouldn't serve any other purpose.
Let's hope this contract is still good because if it's not, i don't wanna say it,..... we all probably screwed. >_
On a positive note MJ is trending here in Canada on twitter