We are in the phase where one party files a summary judgment motion asking to dismiss all or parts of a lawsuit before it goes to trial. AEG has just filed their summary judgment motion in an attempt to dismiss Katherine Jackson's lawsuit against them.
I will post a brief info and post the documents and then update the thread with the summaries etc. Feel free to read, comment and summarize as well. We are opening this thread first at News and Happenings due to significance of it, later it'll be moved to Trials and Tribulations.
AEG Live, Gongaware and Phillips has filed their own summary judgment motion. I'll be posting the documents for it.
AEG Inc, and Leiweike has filed a separate summary judgment motion. I will not be posting it but mainly they argue that the parent company AEG and Leiweike had no contact or involvement with Michael or Murray and therefore they should be removed as parties.
Almost all depositions AEG cite are marked confidential and filed under seal.
AEG Live, Phillips and Gongaware's Summary Judgment motion link : http://www.scribd.com/doc/115405475/AEG-Summary-Judgment-Motion
[scribd]115405475[/scribd]
AEG Inc, and Leiweike has filed a separate summary judgment motion. I will not be posting the documents for it but mainly they argue that the parent company AEG Inc. and Leiweike had no contact or involvement with Michael or Murray and therefore they should be removed as parties.
Summary of the AEG Live, Gongaware and Phillips summary judgment motion (document posted above) is as follows:
AEG is asking dismissal based on "matter of law" as there's no triable issues.
First action : Breach of contract.
In this claim Katherine Jackson claimed AEG had a legal duty and failed to perform their legal duty and acted negligently. AEG denies this claim saying there was no legal duty. They argue that they had no duty to protect Michael from Murray.
A. Katherine claimed there was a "special relationship" between Michael and AEG because Michael was dependent to AEG. AEG argues that the legal definition of special relationship is pretty specific and it involves situations such as the relationship between foster children and foster parents and prisoners and guards and so on. They argue that Michael was a 50 year old intelligent and successful entertainer and he wasn't a child or a prisoner.
A.1. AEG further argues that financial dependence - even if true - doesn't create a special relationship. If it did then every person would be dependent to their employee or their bank. AEG simply argues that every one even though they might have debt have the option to change jobs, sell their assets and declare bankruptcy.
AEG argues that law doesn't recognize special relationship in regards to medical care - unless there's full control. For example law recognizes control over a prisoner's medical care as the prisoner is under the total control of the guards. AEG claims as Michael was not in custody of AEG no such control over his medical care exists.
AEG argues that even though the court to assume that there was some special relationship between AEG and Michael, AEG's only responsibility would be to provide access to medical care. The quality of the medical care would still be responsibility of the doctor Murray and not AEG. AEG argues that the according to law the duty to provide quality medical care is through the doctor to the patient.
A.2. AEG argues that there are no evidence / facts to show that there was a special relationship.
AEG states they did not control Michael's finances. Michael signed the tour deal voluntarily after months of negotiations and changes to the contract. AEG says that despite the claims Michael did not put his personal assets as collateral (Ivy's note: This is something I've been saying for some time now. Michael only put MJJ Co's assets as collateral. The catalogs were personal assets that were hold in separate bankruptcy remote trusts. Catalogs weren't a collateral)
AEG compares Michael deciding to go on tour rather than to sell his assets to any American that works to pay their debts.
AEG says they did not control Michael's medical care. AEG says they did not isolate or stopped Michael from seeing any doctor (Note: Arnie Klein's creditors claims showing that Michael visited him up to 3 days before his death is added as an exhibit) AEG also denies the claim that they forced Michael to see Murray and argue that Murray is Michael's long term physician - even before any deal with AEG.
AEG also states that Murray started to perform services in April 2009 - a month before any AEG executive ever heard of him.
B. Negligent undertaking
B. 1.2. AEG argues that they did not undertake Michael's medical care and this did not increase the chances of any more harm. AEG argues that Murray have been treating Michael for a long time and the risk was the same. AEG's involvement - even if it happened- did not increase the risk.
B.3. AEG argues that they had no obligation to provide Murray any equipment and assistant in Los Angeles because i) Murray wanted those for London and not Los Angeles, ii) the contract was not signed so it was not enforceable and iii)Murray was the one to choose the equipment and assistant and therefore AEG could have not provide it on their own (Murray had to request those and he didn't.)
4. AEG is denying any responsibility for risk as it was Murray who knew that what equipment and assistant needed and still decided to provide services. They place the risk on Murray's conduct.
C. Lack of foreseeability
AEG argues that they could not foresee harm to Michael. Murray was a licensed doctor in multiple states and did not have any prior record of discipline. AEG argues they could not foresee that Murray would deviate this much from the standard of care to the point of being foung guilty of involuntary manslaughter and given maximum sentence.
D. Hiring, training and supervising Murray
AEG denies these claims saying they did not hire Murray, they had no reason to believe Murray was unfit and they did not know Michael was given Propofol.
Again AEG mentions Murray was Michael's longtime physician, he was at LA house performing services a month before AEG even heard about him. They say they started negotiations with Murray in insistence of Michael when they did not want to hire him. They mention the drafting process and mention they did not pay Murray. AEG also points out that the contract had a clause saying that the agreement will not be in effect until Michael signs it.
AEG states that there was no oral contract and everyone was aware that any agreement required to be written and signed. They say their emails and communications show an understanding of this and even Murray wanted to show the agreement to his lawyers and wanted several changes. AEG states their refusal to pay "good faith" payment to Murray also demonstrates that they only considered a written and fully executed agreement as a binding one. AEG argues that all of these show that the agreement was supposed to be in writing and there is no oral contract.
So overall they argue that they never hired Murray and therefore never trained or supervised him either.
AEG continues to argue that even if court thinks they hired Murray, AEG could not have seen the risk Murray posed as Murray was seen as a competent doctor licensed in multiple states with no disciplinary actions.
AEG also argues that Murray was going to be hired as an "independent contractor" and law says you aren't responsible for the actions of an independent contractor.
---------------------------------------------
Some tidbits from the additional documents and not redacted parts
Michael's kids confirm that they either first met Murray in Bahrain or in Las Vegas. They state they started to see Murray more often in LA. (Ivy's note: This seems to AEG's evidence that Michael's relationship with Murray dated long before they came into picture)
Katherine in her written answers admit that Michael was given Propofol by other doctors before Murray.
AEG Live execs - Phillips and Gongaware - state they did not know Michael was being given Propofol by Murray, they state they didn't even know what Propofol is.
Phillips and Gongaware say that their meetings with Murray was limited to 2-3 meetings.
Two excerpts from depositions of Kai Chase and Rosalyn Muhammed state that they did not see Michael under influence. (Ivy's note: Which can be used in trial as these people didn't recognize the effects of the drugs , it'll be impossible for us to recognize it.)
The instance Michael felt cold is mentioned in nanny Rose's deposition as well as Paris's written answers to questions.
Paris also states that she discussed Michael with Latoya and that Latoya promised to get to the bottom of who killed Michael.
AEG's responses include that Michael was represented by Tohme Tohme, Dennis Hawk and Peter Lopez during the negotiations and signing of the TII concert deal.
Katherine argues that given that Gongaware's prior history with Michael (he was involved in other tours) he should have known that Michael was taking Propofol.
------------------------
Oral arguments are set for February 13, 2013. After the oral arguments court would take some to come to a decision.
