Latest on MJJC

The Estate vs HBO

Just wait an gosh darn second…. what?

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/Wf9Axej3d96Ny" width="480" height="367" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/michael-jackson-gif-sleep-Wf9Axej3d96Ny"></a></p>
 
I don't wanna give up but this is too much. they need to stop dragging this crap. all 3 are guilty. how is this freedom to speech? MJ is innocent. :(
 
Last edited:
Where the heck is his kids? where is the family? why nobody else saying anything but fans and close friends? :(
 
A California federal judge on Monday (July 15) held back on deciding whether the Estate of Michael Jackson&#8217;s breach of contract suit over HBO&#8217;s 'Leaving Neverland' documentary should go to arbitration right away, instead allowing HBO to address First Amendment issues underlying the allegations it disparaged Jackson&#8217;s character

At a hearing in downtown Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu entertained a short oral argument over the estate&#8217;s motion to compel arbitration regarding a 1992 agreement between HBO and the estate before deciding he would not rule on the matter without first giving the network a chance to file an anti-SLAPP motion, which is used to guard against lawsuits that are intended to impede free speech.

HBO&#8217;s attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, told Judge Wu there was &#8220;no question&#8221; that 'Leaving Neverland' is a documentary of public concern.

&#8220;It&#8217;s clear it&#8217;s fully protected speech,&#8221; Boutrous said.

But the estate&#8217;s attorney, Jonathan P. Steinsapir of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, argued that federal court rules dictate a deadline for filing anti-SLAPP motions and that it doesn&#8217;t apply in relation to motions to compel arbitration.

&#8220;Giving them a way out at this point is just not fair,&#8221; Steinsapir said.

But Judge Wu said there are SLAPP concerns in the allegations and that he would give HBO a chance to file an anti-SLAPP motion.

In the $100 million suit against HBO, filed in February, the late singer&#8217;s estate claims HBO broke an agreement permitting it to use footage from Jackson&#8217;s Dangerous World Tour in exchange for monetary and non monetary considerations, including a promise from HBO not to &#8220;disparage&#8221; the singer.

The estate alleges the documentary has harmed Jackson&#8217;s legacy.


In May, Judge Wu denied the Jackson estate&#8217;s bid to compel arbitration or remand the case to state court, finding that the language of the 1992 agreement does not indicate that any disputes should be handled only by state court. He also ruled that he should be the one to make a determination on arbitration.

But Judge Wu did allow for supplemental briefing on arbitration part of the motion ahead of Monday&#8217;s hearing.

A hearing for HBO&#8217;s anti-SLAPP motion was set for Sept. 16.

As we said in our papers and at today&#8217;s argument, we believe there is no legal basis for the estate&#8217;s petition and we look forward to presenting further arguments to the court,&#8221; an HBO representative told on Monday.

A representative for Jackson&#8217;s estate did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Michael Jackson&#8217;s estate is represented by Howard Weitzman, Jonathan P. Steinsapir and Zachary T. Elsea of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP and Bryan J. Freedman of Freedman & Taitelman LLP.

HBO is represented by Daniel M. Petrocelli and Drew E. Breuder of O&#8217;Melveny & Myers LLP and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. and Nathaniel L. Bach of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The case is Optimum Productions et al. v. Home Box Office et al., case number 2:19-cv-01862, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Source: Law360 https://www.law360.com/commercialco...d-arbitration-row-paused-in-anti-slapp-effort
 
Last edited:
Re: HBO 'Neverland' Arbitration Row Paused In Anti-SLAPP Effort

HBO is nothing but a desperate coward! I knew that judge should NOT be trusted!
 
PoP said:
HBO is nothing but a desperate coward! I knew that judge should NOT be trusted!
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I was saying when I said I have a lot of trouble trusting any judge dealing with any Court case involving Michael Jackson. The judge very easily dismissed the Estate's request for arbitration and now HBO wants to talk about free speech when that documentary is doing so much damage to Michael's brand and legacy and causing so much emotional pain to his family and fans. That film was nothing more than a one-sided stinker (in my opinion) brought about by two men who, if somebody still wants to believe them, had their chance to put Michael in jail years before his death and didn't do squat. But we're supposed to feel sympathy for them even though their sense of so-called "justice" comes four years up to a decade too late? I'm sorry. I don't think Michael did anything wrong. But I will say this. These men were adults during the trial. One of them chose to go to court and defend Michael under oath and major prosecutorial questioning. The other decided to stay out of the court case. (although, given what he's saying now , he could have come to Court as a prosecution Witness, unless he also denied everything back then) I just don't accept that these men couldn't do anything when it counted. Personally, I think that since they didn't put up back then, they can shut up now. I don't think they or the people involved in making this uh....thing, should be rewarded in regard to these late accusations after these men basically claim to have let Michael get away with everything during his life instead of putting him in jail. It's really just a big fat waste of time now whether or not someone believes them.
 
Last edited:
From what I've read the judge actually seemed to be siding with the estate in general. Although I am not well versed in these matters.
 
Kingofpop4ever3000;4263295 said:
This is exactly what I was saying when I said I have a lot of trouble trusting any judge dealing with any Court case involving Michael Jackson. The judge very easily dismissed the Estate's request for arbitration and now HBO wants to talk about free speech when that documentary is doing so much damage to Michael's brand and legacy and causing so much emotional pain to his family and fans. That film was nothing more than a one-sided stinker (in my opinion) brought about by two men who, if somebody still wants to believe them, had their chance to put Michael in jail years before his death and didn't do squat. But we're supposed to feel sympathy for them even though their sense of so-called "justice" comes four years up to a decade too late? I'm sorry. I don't think Michael did anything wrong. But I will say this. These men were adults during the trial. One of them chose to go to court and defend Michael under oath and major prosecutorial questioning. The other decided to stay out of the court case. (although, given what he's saying now , he could have come to Court as a prosecution Witness, unless he also denied everything back then) I just don't accept that these men couldn't do anything when it counted. Personally, I think that since they didn't put up back then, they can shut up now. I don't think they or the people involved in making this uh....thing, should be rewarded in regard to these late accusations after these men basically claim to have let Michael get away with everything during his life instead of putting him in jail. It's really just a big fat waste of time now whether or not someone believes them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they wanted more than put him in prison which that never happened, they also wanted him dead which they got it, but that wasn&#8217;t enough for the media and the haters for salivating satisfaction and LN was their ticket for their satisfaction and to stress all of us out, but even though I keep saying I&#8217;m still stressed about all this, but it makes me stronger to keep fighting.

And while we&#8217;re at it, the Estate is not the only one having to face the damned Anti-SLAPP motion, VA Vic Mignogna sued Funimation for defamation and tortious interference regarding the sexual harassment allegations we went through for months and got terminated due to it, he named those individuals in the lawsuit are other VA&#8217;s Monica Rial, Jamie Marchi and Ron Toye and recent less than a few weeks ago Funimation used the motion against Mignogna to get the lawsuit dismissed. I even saw clips of both Mignogna and Rial&#8217;s deposition on YouTube and many supported Mignogna and believing Rial was lying. I&#8217;m not much of a fan of Mignogna like I was a fan of Rial, but I suspect that Rial could be lying. Now Mignogna must&#8217;ve known what it&#8217;s like when Michael has gone thru for a long time with the allegations and the trial he suffered. Everybody in Funimation including Mignogna, Rial, Marchi and Toye should learn all experience Michael&#8217;s been thru and how much suffered and fought all this against him. As much as I&#8217;m a big fan and like love Funimation, but they need to learn.
 
HBO Anti-SLAPP to be filed by August 15th.

Estate Opposition to be filed by August 29th (MJ b'day :( )

Reply due on or before 5th September

Hearing set for 16th September.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6206417-LeavingN.html


A pro-MJ lawyer on Twitter says:

First Amendment is federal BUT anti SLAPP is Calif state law procedure and it cannot trump federal arbitration law.

As Judge says, once he finds arbitration is required he must order it. That&#8217;s federal law
 
Last edited:
If I'm interpreting this correctly, the Estate just gained the upper hand.
Summary at the end for those who don't want to sit through this legal babble!

First and foremost, the issue of arbitration. HBO is arguing that the court (not an arbitrator) should be granted jurisdiction over the suit because that is what the 1992 contract explicitly outlines:

"In the event that either party to this agreement brings an action to enforce the terms of these confidentiality provisions or to declare rights with respect to such provisions, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to an award of the costs of litigation... in such amount as may be determined by the court having jurisdiction in such action."

HBO feels that this specific phrasing invalidates the contract's arbitration clause, and effectively asks that the non-disparagement agreement be treated as a separate entity with different judicial practices.

Judge Wu disagreed, stating that (1) the exact text doesn't state that any lawsuits must be litigated in court; (2) the conditional nature of the phrase "in the event" says nothing about where lawsuits can be brought; and (3) legal precedent, specifically Harris v. Sandro, determines that the phrase "the court having jurisdiction" could also apply to an arbitrator.

Secondly, HBO contends that the non-disparagement agreement was strictly limited to the Bucharest concert, which is never acknowledged nor shown during Leaving Neverland, and therefore does not apply to it. Directly quoting the text of the disparagement clause, Wu again sided with the Estate, observing that the provision "clearly encompasses the current dispute."

Third, HBO suggests that, being nearly 30 years old and previously fulfilled, the contract has expired. Wu offers that legal precedent states that arbitration agreements can outlive the contract of which they are included, though such a decision is for an arbitrator to make.

Lastly, HBO asserts that the Estate's enforcement of the arbitration provision is a violation of "the First Amendment, due process, and California public policy." Wu does concur that a constitutional infraction is possible (though not guaranteed), but seems dumbfounded that HBO's lawyers have not countered with an anti-SLAPP motion and, after dropping several poorly-received hints, had to outright tell them to do. HBO has until August 15 to file an anti-SLAPP, which the Estate requested "two weeks" to respond to. Both parties will appear in court on September 16 to address these First Amendment concerns.

=================================================

Summary: HBO fought that the contract (1) explicitly discouraged an arbitrator, (2) was limited to the Bucharest concert and doesn't hold weight over Leaving Neverland, (3) has expired and is therefore unenforceable, and (4) is a violation of the company's First Amendment rights. Judge Wu sided with the Estate on the first three points, but expresses reservations over the fourth. HBO has until August 15 to file an anti-SLAPP motion; the Estate is expected to respond within two weeks. A secondary hearing over First Amendment concerns is scheduled for September 16.


Unless HBO pulls a wild card, I can't foresee a scenario where the Estate doesn't win. Wu's language throughout the trial was heavily dismissive towards HBO and, had it not been for the First Amendment challenge, he absolutely would've ruled in the Estate's favor then and there.

Keep the faith, ladies and gents. Nothing is guaranteed, but this is a phenomenal step forward for truth.
 
My thing is, if Michael did anything. (which he didn't.) why they just now coming saying something? they had alot of time to call him out. why now? funny they said we just remember how he abuse us. lol! these guys just want money. i don't believe Michael didn't do any of that stuff. and there things out there to show he didn't including looking in his home and found not guilty all counts.
 
Kingofpop4ever3000 said:
now HBO wants to talk about free speech when that documentary is doing so much damage to Michael's brand and legacy and causing so much emotional pain to his family and fans. I don't think Michael did anything wrong. I don't think they or the people involved in making this uh....thing, should be rewarded in regard to these late accusations, It's really just a big fat waste of time now whether or not someone believes them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. and i agree.
 
PoP;4263672 said:
Yeah, but they wanted more than put him in prison which that never happened, they also wanted him dead which they got it, but that wasn’t enough for the media and the haters for salivating satisfaction and LN was their ticket for their satisfaction and to stress all of us out, but even though I keep saying I’m still stressed about all this, but it makes me stronger to keep fighting.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Michael was too much for this planet they wanted him dead or put in jail.
 
myosotis;4263708 said:
HBO Anti-SLAPP to be filed by August 15th.

Estate Opposition to be filed by August 29th (MJ b'day :( )

Reply due on or before 5th September

Hearing set for 16th September.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6206417-LeavingN.html


A pro-MJ lawyer on Twitter says:

First Amendment is federal BUT anti SLAPP is Calif state law procedure and it cannot trump federal arbitration law.

As Judge says, once he finds arbitration is required he must order it. That’s federal law
Click to expand...

Why the heck they keep doing these court cases on Michael special occasions? it's annoying and unnecessary. ugh.
 
Yes. Always same in the usa. Robson case has been going on since 2013 and prob have to wait another year for the appeal ruling
 
NatureCriminal7896 said:
So were we stand now? will September be the last of this?
Click to expand...

September 16th is a hearing over HBO's anti-SLAPP motion, which accuses the Estate of interfering with their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Judge Wu thus far has emphasized that he is in favor of arbitration, though he's giving HBO the opportunity to plead their case before he makes a definitive ruling.

It's important to note, though, that state law (anti-SLAPP) is always invalidated by federal law (arbitration). So even if HBO wins the anti-SLAPP suit, it's fully possible that the Estate could still win the arbitration case.

There are essentially three outcomes here:

  1. HBO loses the anti-SLAPP suit, Judge Wu rules in favor of the Estate, and the case goes to arbitration;
  2. HBO wins the anti-SLAPP suit, Judge Wu rules in favor of the Estate, and the case goes to arbitration; or
  3. HBO wins the anti-SLAPP suit, Judge Wu rules in favor of HBO, and he oversees the case.
Either way, this case is far from over. The last few months of court battles are just preliminary debates over whether or not an arbitrator should oversee the process; they haven't even gotten down to a true battle over the non-disparagement agreement.

We've got a long road ahead of us, my friend.
 
AlwaysThere said:
September 16th is a hearing over HBO's anti-SLAPP motion, which accuses the Estate of interfering with their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Judge Wu thus far has emphasized that he is in favor of arbitration, though he's giving HBO the opportunity to plead their case before he makes a definitive ruling.

It's important to note, though, that state law (anti-SLAPP) is always invalidated by federal law (arbitration). So even if HBO wins the anti-SLAPP suit, it's fully possible that the Estate could still win the arbitration case.

There are essentially three outcomes here:

  1. HBO loses the anti-SLAPP suit, Judge Wu rules in favor of the Estate, and the case goes to arbitration;
  2. HBO wins the anti-SLAPP suit, Judge Wu rules in favor of the Estate, and the case goes to arbitration; or
  3. HBO wins the anti-SLAPP suit, Judge Wu rules in favor of HBO, and he oversees the case.
Either way, this case is far from over. The last few months of court battles are just preliminary debates over whether or not an arbitrator should oversee the process; they haven't even gotten down to a true battle over the non-disparagement agreement.

We've got a long road ahead of us, my friend.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your breakdown of possible scenarios or outcomes.
 
September anti-SLAPP hearing date moved (by agreement):
with thanks to fans on Twitter

FYI re the MJ Estate v HBO next hearing. Due to scheduling conflicts by the HBO attorneys, the new court date for the hearing has been changed from 9/16 to 9/19.
Click to expand...
 
I'm glad the Estate did something against HBO... It will be a long battle and unfortunately the damage is done. These liars and profit seekers don't let our dear Michael alone :-(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top