CA appeals court resurrects Michael Jackson sexual abuse lawsuits: ‘Men motivated solely by money’

Two men who have accused Michael Jackson of sexually abusing them for years are getting yet another stab at the King of Pop’s estate after a California appeals court resurrected their lawsuits on Friday.

A three-judge panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal was able to revive the lawsuits of Wade Robson, first brought in 2013, and James Safechuck, brought in 2014, thanks to a new California law — the Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act — signed by Governor Gavin Newsom that temporarily suspends the statute of limitations for civil claims of sexual assault.

The law is similar to the one in New York that allowed E. Jean Carroll to go after former President Donald Trump for sexually assaulting her roughly three decades ago.

In 2017, the men’s lawsuits were dismissed for the first time because the statute of limitations had already run out.

Robson and Safechuck rose to national notoriety after appearing in the controversial 2019 HBO documentary, “Leaving Neverland.”

Their lawsuits were dismissed again in 2021 after a judge “found that the corporations, MJJ Productions Inc. and MJJ Ventures Inc., could not be expected to function like the Boy Scouts or a church where a child in their care could expect their protection,” NBC News reports.

Jackson died in 2009 as the sole owner and only shareholder in the companies.


(Video: YouTube)

The triad found on Friday that the alleged victims could indeed claim they were entitled to protection from the two corporations, which were named as defendants in their suits.

“[A] corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator of the abuse,” the higher court judges wrote, adding that “it would be perverse to find no duty based on the corporate defendant having only one shareholder. And so we reverse the judgments entered for the corporations.”

The attorney for Jackson’s estate, Jonathan Steinsapir, told the Associated Press in an email they were “disappointed” by the ruling.

“Two distinguished trial judges repeatedly dismissed these cases on numerous occasions over the last decade because the law required it,” he said. “We remain fully confident that Michael is innocent of these allegations, which are contrary to all credible evidence and independent corroboration, and which were only first made years after Michael’s death by men motivated solely by money.”

In July, Steinsapir argued that the idea of legally requiring “low-level employees” to somehow put a stop to their boss’s behavior made no sense.

“It would require low-level employees to confront their supervisor and call them pedophiles,” he said.

An attorney for the duo, Holly Boyer, countered Steinsapir’s argument by claiming Robson and Safechuck “were left alone in this lion’s den by the defendant’s employees. An affirmative duty to protect and to warn is correct.”

Vince Finaldi, another attorney for the men, said they were “pleased but not surprised” that the previous judge’s “incorrect rulings in these cases” were overturned.

The initial ruling to dismiss them “were against California law and would have set a dangerous precedent that endangered children throughout state and country,” Finaldi said. “We eagerly look forward to a trial on the merits.”

However, Steinsapir said he has evidence that the parents never expected Jackson’s employees to protect their sons.

“They were not looking to Michael Jackson’s companies for protection from Michael Jackson,” he stated.

One of the panelists, Associate Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr., wasn’t convinced.

“[T]o treat Jackson’s wholly-owned instruments as different from Jackson himself is to be mesmerized by abstractions,” he wrote in a concurring opinion. “This is not an alter ego case. This is a same ego case.”

Steinsapir remains undaunted.

“We trust that the truth will ultimately prevail with Michael’s vindication yet again,” he said on Friday.

Melissa Fine

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles