MJ Estate Answer to Robson’s Civil Complaint

Funny, but the constant need to look into some legal cases brought against Michael Jackson during his lifetime and even after his death has turned us into diligent students who have to continuously study the procedural rules for criminal and civil cases under the US law.

As part of this self-education program here is the MJ Estate’s preliminary answer to Robson’s civil complaint. The answer is short and impressive, and is actually the first document that concerns Robson’s claim proper, as all motions prior to that focused solely on determining whether his civil claim was legally valid at all. 

As you know the probate claims filed by Robson and Safechuck were dismissed as they didn’t meet even the basic requirements set by the law, however Robson’s civil complaint was allowed by the judge to go further. Now it has entered a discovery stage and the next target in view is the summary judgment the motion for which may come from either of the sides.

Legal dictionary says that summary judgment is:

• a procedural device used during civil litigaiton to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. 

The motion for a summary judgment may be supported by declarations made under oath, excerpts from depositions under oath and all other discovery (evidence) that would be admissible at trial under the Rules of Evidence:

• Unlike with pretrial motions to dismiss, information such as affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, and admissions may be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Any evidence that would be admissible at trial under the rules of evidence may support a motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment in the United States applies only in civil cases. If the civil case survives the summary judgment it is only then that it goes to a trial.

Given the absurdity of Robson’s story I am surprised that his case has gone past the initial stage at all. However legal sources explain that

• “at the early stages of litigation the court must view the facts set forth in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff”

and this is apparently why judge didn’t dismiss the case from the start of it. And now that it took Robson three amended versions to finally state his complaint, the Estate are giving their answer to it.

The document is retyped for easier handling and the original is embedded at the end of this post.

Filed on October 9, 2015 

Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc.’s and MJJ Ventures, Inc’s

answer to the third amended complaint of Wade Robson

Action filed: May 10, 2013

Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc., and MJJ Ventures, Inc., (“the Corporate Defendants”) hereby answer the Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Wade Robson as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL DENIAL

This case has no merit in fact or law. Wade Robson’s allegations are directly contrary to his sworn testimony in a 2005 criminal trial where Michael Jackson was vindicated of all wrongdoing by a unanimous jury of twelve. Robson was twenty-three-years-old when he testified in 2005. He was subjected to vigorous and repeated cross-examination by a very zealous prosecutor handling the case, but Robson’s testimony never wavered.

In his complaint for money damages, Robson does not claim that he made a mistake when he testified in 2005 or that he suffered from a “repressed memory”. Rather, Robson simply claims that he chose to lie to a criminal jury in 2005. Yet, a decade later, and almost four years after Michael Jackson’s tragic death, Robson changed his story knowing that Michael Jackson is no longer here to defend himself. Robson recanted his testimony in a criminal trial for the sole and express purpose of taking money from Michael Jackson’s heirs and beneficiaries. After all, Robson’s complaint does not and cannot seek anything other than money.

There is no just or equitable way for a Court in this State to allow Robson to recover here – either he is perjuring himself today in an effort to obtain money, or he perjured himself and obstructed justice in a criminal proceeding a decade ago. There is no middle ground between those two positions – a recovery here would make a mockery of California’s system of justice.

All of the above being said, the Corporate Defendants are one hundred percent confident that Robson did tell the truth in 2005, when his sole motivation was to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), the Corporate Defendants generally and specifically deny each of the allegations contained in the Third Amended Complaint, generally and specifically deny that Robson has sustained any injury or loss by reason of any act or omission of the Corporate Defendants, and generally and specifically deny that Robson has been damaged in any amount whatsoever.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to state a course of action)

1. The Third Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the Corporate Defendants because, among other things, the Third Amended Complaint does not explain what duty the Corporate Defendants supposedly owed to wade Robson and how that duty was supposedly breached.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statutes of Limitations)

2. Robson’s claims are barred entirely by applicable statutes of limitations. Specifically, and without limitation, Robson cannot prove that his claims are within the scope of the expanded statue of limitations of Code of Civil Procedue section 340.1.

THIRD AFFIFMATIVE DEFENSE

(Violation of Due Process and Other Constitutional Principles of Fundamental Fairness)

3. Under the specific and unique circumstances of this case, any recovery by Robson would violate the Corporate Defendants’ right under the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions and by other principles of fundamental fairness, embodied in those charter documents. In particular, and by way of example only, Robson waited almost four years after Michael Jackson had died before he made his scurrilous and frivolous allegations. The nature of these false allegations necessarily makes it impossible for the Corporate Defendants to fully defend themselves without the assistance of Michael Jackson himself. The impossibility of fully and completely defending against Robson’s false allegations is further magnified by the fact that Robson himself steadfastly denied these allegations during the entirety of Michael Jackson’s life. Indeed, Robson and his family denied the allegations under oath on multiple occasions, including in a 2005 criminal trial where Michael Jackson was frivolously accused of misconduct and then exonerated by a unanimous jury of twelve. Accordingly, the Corporate Defendants could not possibility have been on notice, prior to Michael Jackson’s death, that Robson would bring claims like those here and that they should have been prepared to defend against such claims.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands, Bad Faith, and Inequitable Conduct)

4. As a result of Robson’s own affirmative claims that he perjured himself and obstructed justice in prior judicial proceedings, and other inequitable conduct by him and his associates, all claims in the Third Amended Complaint are barred in whole or in part by unclean hands, bad faith and inequitable conduct.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Causation)

5. Robson cannot show that any acts or omissions of the Corporate Defendants caused him any damages. In particular, and by way of example only, when Michael Jackson was frivolously accused of wrongdoing in 1993 and investigated by authorities regarding such wrongdoing, both Robson and Robson’s family, including his mother Joy Robson, publicly and prominently defended Michael Jackson and rejected the allegations of wrongdoing out of hand, including false allegations that Michael Jackson had engaged in wrongdoing with Wade Robson himself. Given that Joy Robson necessarily knew more than the Corporate Defendants about the relationship between Wade Robson and Michael Jackson, and given that Joy Robson did not take any steps to “protect” Robson (because no such steps were necessary), Wade Robson cannot possibly prove his absurd allegations that the Corporate Defendants’ supposed failure to take “reasonable steps” to prevent the alleged abuse is what caused him damage.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to File a Creditor’s Claim and Code of Civil Procedure #366.2)

6. Wade Robson already petitioned to file a claim against the Estate of Michael Jackson, based on these exact same false allegations. The Court dismissed that petition with prejudice on May 26, 2015, and held that Robson could file no such claim against the Estate as a matter of law (as set out in the Court’s May 26, 2015 ruling dismissed Robson’s petition against the Estate), which clearly precludes Robson from recovering based on his false allegations.

7. In light of the above, and given the specific allegation of the Third Amended Complain and prior complaints, this action against the Corporate Defendants is truly an action based on the alleged personal liability of Michael Jackson himself, and not an action based on any alleged “corporate” conduct of the Corporate Defendants. This is a disguised action for money damages against the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased (the Corporate Defendants are a substantial part of the rest of the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased, under administration of the Superior Court, Case No. BP 117321), and is precluded for all the same reasons that the prior petition to file a claim against the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased, was precluded as a matter of law.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Waiver)

8. As a result of Robson’s knowledge, conduct, words and actions, Robson has waived any and all of the alleged rights asserted in the Third Amended Complaint and in each and every claim therein.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Join Indispensable Parties)

9. Robson’s claims are barred because he has failed to join indispensable parties who are responsible for his alleged harm.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Latches)

10. Robson’s claims are barred entirely by the doctrine of laches.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

( Estoppel)

11.Robson’s claims are barred entirely by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Damages)

12. Robson’s claims in the Third Amended Complaint are barred in whole or in part, because Robson suffered neither damages nor injury; any damages or injuries alleged are attributable to causes other than any asserted acts or omissions of the Corporate Defendants.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Speculative Damages)

13. Robson cannot recover any of the damages alleged in the Third Amended Complaint because such damages, if any, are too speculative to be recoverable.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel)

14. This action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Reservation of Rights)

15. The Corporate Defendants have insufficient information upon which to form a belief as to whether it has additional, unstated affirmative defenses. The Corporate Defendants reserve the right to assert additional defenses in the event they are appropriate.

WHEREFORE, the Corporate Defendants respectfully pray for judgment against Wade Robson as follows:

1. That Wade Robson take nothing by way of his Complaint and that judgment be rendered in favor of the Corporate Defendants and against Wade Robson;
2. For costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees due to the frivolous nature of the case and
3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: October 9, 2015                                            

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 

On every single cause of action and issue so triable, the Corporate Defendants demand a trial by a jury of their peers.

DATED: October 9, 2015                                              

KINSELLA WEITSMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT LLP

By: …… (signature)…………

Howard Weitzman

Jonathan P. Steinsapir

Attorneys for Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc., and MJJ Ventures, Inc.  

~

The response is a powerful one and doesn’t even need any comment.

The points that make me happiest are that Estate are one hundred per cent confident that Robson was telling the truth at the 2005 trial, when truth (and not money) was his sole motivation, and that now they demand a trial by jury and do not even consider a possibility of reaching a settlement with the liar.

The only suggestion I would make is that the Estate include Victor Gutierrez into the list of people to be deposed. In his book he claims that in June 1992 he had a long discussion with Joy Robson and shared with her his most horrible innuendoes about Michael, but she didn’t seem to care. And if she didn’t care why should the MJJ companies do, especially since they knew that there was not a grain of truth in those innuendoes?

View this document on Scribd