Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Michael Jackson's news in English. Your updated reference for Michael Jackson's news in English language from all around the world. Rumors, gossip and true facts. And a lot of Michael Jackson's beautiful pictures.
Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 14 luglio 2019, 10:29

@andjustice4some

Reminder: The Estate of Michael Jackson will be back in court Monday, 7/15 at 8:30 am. The judge in this case has read the arguments from both the Estate and HBO, and will likely rule either for or against arbitration. He can rule either that day or in the next few days.
Immagine



The Estate of Michael Jackson has sued HBO for breach of contract for Leaving Neverland. They claim that the contract between MJ and HBO for Live in Bucharest had a non-disparagement clause that does not expire. (Non-disparagement means that HBO cannot publish anything

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 luglio 2019, 8:46

The following is from a fan who was in the courtroom - this is their take on what happened so far.


karmousaG
@karmousaG

1 Hi guys so let me start by saying I'm.mot a lawyer and will wait like you for Punchys in depth analysis of today. I'll share the notes I took and could catch. Estate said we are here for a motion to compel. HBO then spoke and said this is a question that's down to language

. They said this is. Not infinite that we are barred about saying something bad about Mj. The judge interrupts and says that is for the arbiter to decide. They are saying we breached the no disparagement. The judge cuts in and says insulting Mj a disparagement is a disparagement

. Judge says there is a provision that states that you shall.not disparage singer. hBo then says you have tot look at the totalit#y and this is about a concert why are they mentioning the dangerous tour. Judge again says it does t get around disparagement and again says

The judge says again an arbitrator should decide not you. Estate now says we didn't just sue for ND we also sued because of the way they went about it. The contract makes it clear that they have to get our permission and that HBO produced it.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 luglio 2019, 9:53

karmousaG
@karmousaG

Guys Jonathon S estate lawyer says please tell the fans I tried today but we will have another round in Sept

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 luglio 2019, 15:47

https://www.mjvibe.com/hbo-neverland-ar ... pp-effort/

HBO ‘NEVERLAND’ ARBITRATION ROW PAUSED IN ANTI-SLAPP EFFORT
JULY 16, 2019

A California federal judge on Monday held back on deciding whether the Estate of Michael Jackson’s breach of contract suit over HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” documentary should go to arbitration right away, instead allowing HBO to address First Amendment issues underlying the allegations it disparaged Jackson’s character.

At a hearing in downtown Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu entertained a short oral argument over the estate’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’s attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, told Judge Wu there was “no question” that “Leaving Neverland” is a documentary of public concern.

“It’s clear it’s fully protected speech,” Boutrous said.

But the estate’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’t apply in relation to motions to compel arbitration.

“Giving them a way out at this point is just not fair,” 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’s estate claims HBO broke an agreement permitting it to use footage from Jackson’s Dangerous World Tour in exchange for monetary and nonmonetary considerations, including a promise from HBO not to “disparage” the singer.

The estate alleges the documentary has harmed Jackson’s legacy.

In May, Judge Wu denied the Jackson estate’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’s hearing.

A hearing for HBO’s anti-SLAPP motion was set for Sept. 16.

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

A representative for Jackson’s estate did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Michael Jackson’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’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

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 19 luglio 2019, 10:08

Transcripts from 15th July, 2019 hearing.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4185523 ... ly-15-2019

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 luglio 2019, 10:54

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2019/0 ... bitration/

In Heated ‘Leaving Neverland’ Case, a California Judge Asks Whether Forced Arbitration Would Violate HBO’s First Amendment Rights
Daniel Sanchez July 19, 2019

Immagine

Does sending a questionable documentary back to arbitration violate freedom of speech?
That’s the question a California federal judge has in mind.

Earlier this week, U.S. District Court Judge George H. Wu asked HBO and the Michael Jackson Estate to file briefs. Both parties must explain whether sending Leaving Neverland to arbitration would violate HBO’s first amendment rights.

In February, Michael Jackson’s Estate filed a costly $100 million lawsuit against the network. HBO allegedly violated a non-disparagement agreement first reached in 1992. The late singer’s family claims that HBO signed the deal prior to airing Michael Jackson in Concert in Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour.

HBO, however, soon scored a major victory. A federal judge rejected a motion by Jackson’s Estate to transfer the case back to an arbitrator. Both sides fought to determine where the case would ultimately be decided. Simply stated, the late singer’s estate doesn’t want the litigation carried out in open court, while HBO had a different idea.
The network has long argued the 1992 non-disparagement agreement never existed. This facilitates the need for a federal court to intervene.

Judge Wu’s latest move signals his intent to side with the Michael Jackson Estate and send the case back to arbitration.
On the network’s part, HBO’s legal team wants Judge Wu to declare the possible arbitration ruling “unenforceable.” A move to arbitration wouldn’t only violate its First Amendment rights, argues the network. The ruling would also violate due process and California public policy. If denied, HBO argues this would open the floodgates to a slew of posthumous defamation claims.

According to Jackson’s estate, arbitration doesn’t violate the network’s freedom of speech. Should Judge Wu rule against HBO, this wouldn’t count as the government interfering with the network’s right of free expression.

Telling both sides the issue will be further discussed in court, Judge Wu wrote,

“While the Court agrees that attempting to enforce an arbitration agreement in a contract that includes a non-disparagement clause through the filing of a lawsuit does not initially suggest the presence of state action, the initiation of the litigation itself can trigger First Amendment concerns.

“It cannot be doubted that Plaintiffs’ arbitration action is seeking to recover damages based upon Defendants’ broadcasting a documentary.”

A trial to deal with the First Amendment issues will take place on September 16th.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 17 agosto 2019, 9:49

Not sure where they got this information but seems flawed to me.

https://deadline.com/2019/08/michael-ja ... 202670029/
HBO Wants $100M ‘Leaving Neverland’ Suit By Michael Jackson Estate Dismissed; Premium Cabler Flies 1st Amendment Flag Over Estate

By Dominic Patten

HBO Wants $100M ‘Leaving Neverland’ Suit By Michael Jackson Estate Dismissed; Premium Cabler Flies 1st Amendment Flag Over Estate
Harvey Weinstein Rape Trial Faces A Potential New Delay, As NYC D.A. Wants Annabella Sciorra To Testify
‘Bold & The Beautiful’ Tops Soap Opera Demo For First Time After 32 Years On Air
VIEW ALL
August 16, 2019 4:21pm

Immagine

With five nominations going into next month’s Emmy Awards, Leaving Neverland is hoping to score a final win in court too.

Under legal fire from the extremely litigious estate of Michael Jackson, the HBO documentary examining allegations that the Thriller star sexually abused children has now moved to have the case against it tossed out of court once and for all.

“Plaintiffs’ claims fail because they violate the First Amendment, Due Process Clause and public policy, and in any event, the contract on which they are based is inapplicable and expired,” states the special motion to strike by HBO’s powerhouse lawyers Theodore Boutrous Jr. and Daniel Petrocelli.

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.co ... strike.pdf

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 17 agosto 2019, 9:58

https://theblast.com/c/michael-jackson- ... ade-robson

Michael Jackson Estate Called Out By HBO Over Wade Robson, Network Wants Lawsuit Dismissed

Aug 17, 2019

According to court documents obtained by The Blast, HBO is not holding back in court against Jackson’s estate. They are continuing to demand the estate’s legal action against them over “Leaving Neverland” be dismissed.

They explain the entire case was brought, “Less than two weeks before Leaving Neverland was scheduled to premiere on HBO, Optimum Productions, John Branca, and John McClain (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) very publicly filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration that aggressively attacks HBO for exercising its free speech rights when it chose to exhibit the documentary, seeks to compel an unavailable 'public' arbitration over an expired contract, and asserts they are entitled to more than $100 million in damages— including punitive damages—allegedly arising from statements made in the film about Michael Jackson.”

HBO takes the estate to task saying, “ The only possible reason why Plaintiffs filed their Petition in court was to attract maximum attention to their public relations campaign against Leaving Neverland and the documentary’s subjects, two men who recount in the film in extraordinary detail how, as boys, they were serially sexually abused by Mr. Jackson”

Immagine

The continue, “But neither the Estate of Michael Jackson nor anyone else owns history, especially history involving a world-famous and controversial public figure. Leaving Neverland’s filmmakers were fully within their rights to tell Mr. Robson’s and Mr. Safechuck’s important stories, and HBO was fully within its rights to exhibit the newsworthy documentary."

Earlier this year, MJ’s estate filed a petition to compel HBO to arbitration over the documentary ‘Leaving Neverland’.

They argued that Jackson had a longstanding contractual relationship” with HBO, and believe there is a non-disparagement clause that was breached. They accused HBO of being in breach of a 1992 deal, which they had with Jackson to air his Dangerous Tour special.

MJ’s estate is seeking all “damages proximately caused by HBO’s reprehensible disparagement of Michael Jackson, which could exceed $100 million should HBO succeed in the damage it is intending to cause the legacy of Michael Jackson.”

HBO has been trying to get the whole thing thrown out of court, denying all allegations of wrongdoing.

HBO says the original contact is very clear any legal issues arising would not be heard in private court. They call the estate’s interpretation of the contact “mere fantasy.”

They said “Leaving Neverland” only briefly mentioned the 1992 concert and had nothing really to do with the documentary. They also argue the documentary came out more than 25 years AFTER the termination of the 1992 agreement and “long past any reasonable period of time thereafter.”

In a statement to The Blast, the estate of Michael Jackson says, "A contract doesn’t expire just because you wish it so as HBO does here. There is no expiration term in the contract, nor does it terminate as a matter of law. Likewise, the First Amendment does not protect HBO from willfully and blatantly violating its contractual obligations, as it did here."

The statement continues, "The Estate of Michael Jackson is confident that HBO’s latest attempt to avoid its contractual obligations will fail."

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 17 agosto 2019, 12:05

From fans on Twitter:

Following on from the HBO Anti-SLAPP motion in the last hearing, HBO have filed their motion to strike (remove) the Estate's arbitration claim.

Reasons are: (Page 18/ Line 13)
Estate needs to establish that there is a reasonable probability that they will win their breach of contract claim (HBO provides previous relevant case law on this point) and this will not be possible for the Estate because :
i) The Estate claim unlawfully targets HBO's free speech rights in violation of the 1st Amendment and
2) The 1992 HBO-MJJ companies agreement is terminated and does not relate to 'Leaving Neverland'.

We now await the Estate's response to HBO, which will of course say that HBO is wrong on both points, and that their claim should not be removed. Estate response is expected on/ around 29th August.

Both sides' arguments will then be considered at the 19 September court hearing, and we should hear the court decision on the Anti-SLAPP motion before the end of September.
(The next step after that, if the case goes forward, should be arbitration- if the judge agrees to it).

https://www.scribd.com/document/4221...tion-To-Strike

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 30 agosto 2019, 9:58

The MJE vs. HBO 8/29/19
The MJ Estate Response.

Table of content below to see the overall response topics & link to the full doc below.

https://scribd.com/document/423748203/T ... ce-8-29-19
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 31 agosto 2019, 10:28

https://www.mjvibe.com/the-michael-jack ... ainst-hbo/


THE MICHAEL JACKSON ESTATE FILLED AN OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM AGAINST HBO.
AUGUST 31, 2019

Immagine

The Michael Jackson’s Estate responded to HBO’s motion for dismissal on August 29..

In the opposition memorandum, the Michael Jackson Estate stresses that its petition turns exclusively “an issue of federal law under the Federal Arbitration Act” and as such, this court has no business applying California’s SLAPP law to whether or not HBO goes to arbitration. Recent Supreme Court rulings how states can’t create “procedural or substantive” obstacles to enforcement of arbitration agreements gets attention. And the Michael Jackson Estate reminds the judge of the modest chore before him.

The petition, states plaintiff, “arises out of HBO’s refusal to arbitrate. Breaching an agreement by refusing to arbitrate is not constitutionally protected activity. And even if it were, the Jackson Estate has shown a probability of success on that claim, as the Court explained in detail in its tentative order (where it definitively rejected all of HBO’s arguments against arbitration). If the Jackson Estate’s claims to be arbitrated are as frivolous as HBO would have the Court believe, it should have no reason for concern.”

California’s SLAPP law provides an automatic right to an immediate appeal. Meaning, no matter what Wu decides, there’s a pretty good chance that the case goes up to the 9th Circuit and maybe eventually the Supreme Court before the two sides would actually settle in for the prospective “open” arbitration.

Hearing on September 19.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 4 settembre 2019, 21:46

TSCM
@MJJRepository

Wade Robson Case Update - Oral arguments have been scheduled for October 2 @ 1:00p PST.
Each side will get 10-30 minutes to argue their legal position to the panel of judges. The judges will have already reviewed the case file and usually ask many questions to clarify issues.

I believe it will be third floor at:
Ronald Reagan State Building
300 S Spring St B-228
Los Angeles, CA 90013

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 11 settembre 2019, 21:19

MJ Estate Request for Sur-reply
Uploaded byAndJustice4Some
Description:The Michael Jackson Estate is requesting that they be allowed to reply to HBO's latest reply. The Court must approve that the Estate is allowed to do so.


https://www.scribd.com/document/4254174 ... -Sur-reply

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 13 settembre 2019, 10:14

RE MJ Estate v HBO. The judge has GRANTED the Estate the right to file a sur-reply to HBO's reply!
@Hammertonhal

@TruthAndLaw8

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 14 settembre 2019, 10:13

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

Reminder: MJ Estate v HBO case: The judge has given HBO until Monday, 9/16 to reply to the Estate's argument. Then Thursday, 9/19, there is a hearing and we might actually get a ruling for or against arbitration. Keeping fingers crossed for a ruling FOR arbitration.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 16 settembre 2019, 21:42

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

Re MJ Estate v HBO, as promised, here is HBO's response to the MJ Estate's sur-reply. Next court date is this Thursday, 9/19/19.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4261184 ... -Sur-Reply

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 settembre 2019, 9:55

This person was in court yesterday and kindly kept the fan community informed.


karmousaG
@karmousaG
1) Hi guys sorry for the delay it's been a long day for me. Just wanted to give you a summary of how things unfolded given that only HBO spoke.
The judge started off by saying how interesting this case was. He then commented on.seeing Branca in court.

Basically made a joke about how he got older and he remembers him when he was a lawyer who told him he wanted to do entertainment law. Back to the case he says maybe he shouldn't have initiated the anti slapp for HBO but now he must do something quickly.

HBO starts saying this case was about a lawsuit that's a red herring on estates part and that its a strategic lawsuit against telling the world about the allegations and the anti slapp should be able to stop this lawsuit from chilling speech.

The judge asks didnt this just win an Emmy? This is my opinion but I felt that HBO completely misread that comment. They answer the judge by saying oh yes your honor it did and we are glad you brought that up as he tried to make the Emmy win lend credibility to it somehow.
HBO then says this case is not a traditional petition of arbitration and gives an example the judge interrupts by saying the statement is ironic and it's contradictory. They both go back and forth and judge says how anti slapp may not work in this case.

HBO try to convince him otherwise. They continue by saying we recognize the strong policy on arbitration yet they argued for disparagement and only mention arbitration on page 19. He seemed stuck on this point and judge picked up on this.

The judge says maybe that it didn't involve this but that is the basis it has moved to with the breach of confidentiality and there is an arbitration petition even if you think there isint a basis. HBO then says the estate think they have a right to arbitrate but they don't.

Judge calls their statement ironic. HBO say they are filing this lawsuit and want public arbitration. HBO missing judges point. They site a case again saying it should be stricken with anti slapp. Site protected activity attacked speec +that while HBO can fight back others cnt.
Judge tells HBO I cnt do what you want me to do. HBO then says the harm is the lawsuit it sends a message of we are going to sue you. Judge calls HBO a Titan and not a small side show business. Calls both of them clash of titans. The non disparagement is there.

Judge continues you breached a contract and they want an arbitrator. he says this is an issue for state law. He asked HBO is it state law or federal law? Almost like testing them.They reply Federal and judge said well you lose. HBO tried to tell judge lets keep this case going..

They then said well your ruling against us so we will let an arbiter rule. Judge said I have said what I said and will give my official reply either tomorrow or Sept 30. So basically it' verbally went tot us but we have to wait for the official paperwork.

This is the first step we still have awile to go. It's also getting the process going. I felt like the Emmy backfired and may have actually helped the esteem on some level you guys. Just the tone and facial expression on the judges face just a feeling.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 settembre 2019, 10:01

https://www.billboard.com/articles/busi ... and-ruling

Even If 'Leaving Neverland' Judge Rules in Favor of Michael Jackson Estate, HBO Lawsuit Is Far From Over

Immagine

"No matter who wins or loses it's going to be taken up on appeal. It does't matter what I do," said Judge George H. Wu on Thursday.
A federal judge in Los Angeles on Thursday (Sept. 19) indicated he was leaning towards granting a request by Michael Jackson's estate requiring HBO be bound by a 1992 arbitration agreement rather than allowing a lawsuit over Leaving Neverland to continue in the federal court system. While arbitration proceedings are usually private, Jackson's attorneys have make the unusual request of wanting to hold public arbitration.

The lawsuit filed March 3 by Michael Jackson Estate against HBO over Leaving Neverland has taken some unusual turns and might actually end up before the Supreme Court, according to U.S. District Court Judge George H. Wu, who is currently overseeing the case. Jackson's estate initially filed its lawsuit against HBO in March, arguing the documentary violated a 1992 contract agreement that was signed in a licensing deal for HBO to televise Jackson's Dangerous World Tour concert in Bucharest, Romania.

The 1992 agreement stated that "HBO shall not make any disparaging remarks concerning [Michael Jackson] ... or do any act that may harm or disparage or cause to lower in esteem the reputation of [Jackson.]" In addition, the agreement contained a clause that all disputes regarding this agreement would be handled in arbitration.

Once Jackson's estate learned of the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland it reminded HBO about this 27-year-old agreement. HBO ignored Jackson's estates request. Jackson's estate subsequently filed a $100 million dollar lawsuit against HBO in state court after the documentary aired, claiming the documentary harmed the legacy of Michael Jackson. HBO later had the case moved from state to federal court, refusing to agree to arbitration, according to court papers. HBO subsequently filed an anti-SLAPP motion alleging the Jackson estate was trying to silence constitutional rights of free speech by attempting to compel them to arbitration.

HBO attorney Theodore Boutrous argued that Jackson's estate filing "screams strategic lawsuit" and that it was done to "chill speech" regarding child abuse.

Judge Wu said in the Los Angeles courtroom Thursday that the law was unsettled regarding whether an anti-SLAPP motion can be applied against a request to compel arbitration, calling the case "messy" and "unique." He said he expects both parties will appeal his decision, regardless, and the issue will ultimately be decided by a higher court, possibly even the Supreme Court.

"This case is interesting," Wu said. "No matter who wins or loses it's going to be taken up on appeal. It does't matter what I do."

Wu is expected to issue a final ruling by the earliest Friday or at the latest by Sept. 30. After hearing Wu's comments and questions during the hearing and seeing his tentative ruling, Jackson estate attorneys said they were confident the judge would issue a ruling in their favor.

"HBO has tried everything possible to avoid having a trier of fact adjudicate their wrongdoing," said Jackson estate attorney Bryan J. Freedman of Freedman & Taitelman, LLP, in a statement after the hearing. "If HBO believes its actions were proper then there is no reason for them to try and hide behind procedural technicalities to avoid an arbitration or a trial. Whether in an arbitration, federal court, state court or the court of appeal, the Estate of Michael Jackson will force HBO to be held accountable for its wrongful conduct. The Estate will never stop until justice has been obtained."

John Branca, co-executor of Jackson's estate, said, "I've never seen a media organization work so hard to keep a secret.... We are just trying to get all the facts out there."

When reached for comment, an HBO spokesperson said, "We are waiting to see the Judge's final decision."

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 settembre 2019, 10:39

https://www.mjvibe.com/judge-declines-h ... d-lawsuit/


JUDGE DECLINES HBO’S REQUEST TO THROW OUT ‘LEAVING NEVERLAND’ LAWSUIT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2019

Immagine

The Michael Jackson estate and HBO may be headed to public arbitration in their dispute over the “Leaving Neverland” documentary.

The Michael Jackson estate and HBO may be headed to public arbitration in their dispute over the “Leaving Neverland” documentary after a federal judge Thursday declined HBO’s request to throw out the case.

Federal Judge George Wu on Thursday issued a tentative ruling denying HBO’s request to dismiss the case. He’s expected to make a final ruling by the end of the month. HBO attorney Theodore Boutrous claimed the Jackson estate had filed the suit in an attempt to censor or silence the critical documentary, directed by Dan Reed.

“It was filed to chill speech,” Boutrous argued in court, according to Variety. “It was filed to tell the world, ‘Don’t talk about child sex abuse.’ … A company like HBO may be able to fight back and move forward. Others might not be able to do that.”

Jackson estate lawyer Bryan J. Freedman issued the following statement Thursday:

“HBO has tried everything possible to avoid having a trier of fact adjudicate their wrongdoing. If HBO believes its actions were proper then there is no reason for them to try and hide behind procedural technicalities to avoid an arbitration or a trial. Whether in an arbitration, federal court, state court or the court of appeal, the estate of Michael Jackson will force HBO to be held accountable for its wrongful conduct. The estate will never stop until justice has been obtained.”

Wu said his ruling will likely be appealed, referring to the fight between HBO — owned by mega-conglomerate AT&T — and the Jackson estate — which has reportedly earned more than $2 billion since the singer’s 2009 death — as a “clash of the titans,”

John Branca, a co-executor of Jackson’s estate, says HBO has been trying to suppress the other side of the story. The estate has criticized HBO for not including responses to the documentary’s allegations in the film.

“I’ve never seen a media organization fight so hard to keep a secret,” he said, according to Variety. “We’re saying let’s get all the facts out there, not just two stories from two accusers with a financial interest.”

“Leaving Neverland” was nominated for five Emmy nominations and went on to win a trophy for outstanding documentary or non-fiction special at last week’s Creative Arts Emmys, a move trashed by the Jackson estate.

“For a film that is a complete fiction to be honored n a non-fiction Emmy category is a complete farce,” the estate said in a statement.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 settembre 2019, 15:05

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sage-field

HBO fails to get $100 MILLION suit against Michael Jackson's estate tossed out of court after it sued the network for airing 'Leaving Neverland' and 'violating' a non-disparaging agreement signed 26 years ago
Judge George Wu sided with late singer's estate who filed the suit against HBO
He indicated that he may grant a request for arbitration in an upcoming ruling
Jackson's estate is demanding $100 million, claiming that airing the doc breached a 1992 non-disparagement clause signed by the King of Pop
As he movie suggests that Jackson sexually abused children on that tour, the estate argues it is in 'direct violation of the non-disparagement clause'
The filing also calls the two men at the center of the documentary, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, 'admitted perjurers'
By CHRIS SPARGO FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 21:45 BST, 19 September 2019

Michael Jackson's estate looks like it could be heading into arbitration with HBO over its airing of the documentary Leaving Neverland, which it argues violated a 1992 non-disparagement clause signed by the King of Pop.

Judge George Wu denied a motion Thursday to dismiss the estate's case against the cable network, indicating that he may decide to grant a request for arbitration when he issues final ruling by September's end, reports Variety.

The estate, in a $100 million lawsuit it filed against HBO, accuses the broadcaster of breaching a contract that was signed by the Jackson back in 1992 when his Dangerous World Tour aired on the premium cable channel.

The suit argues that the documentary does this by suggesting that Jackson molested children while he was on the Dangerous World Tour.

'It is hard to imagine a more direct violation of the non-disparagement clause,' declares the suit.

It also calls the two men at the center of the documentary, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, 'admitted perjurers,' and mocks current HBO president Richard Pepler, calling him a 'failure'.

Leaving Neverland premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January and was later broadcast in two parts on March 3 and 4.

Immagine

The estate, upset with HBO for not including its rebuttal to the allegations in the documentary, now wants the court to approve the arbitration request to resolve the contract dispute.

HBO has resisted, saying the agreement - which has been in place for 26 years - no longer applies.

Attorney Theodore Boutrous, one of the lawyers representing HBO, had tried to throw the case out under California's anti-SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public participation, law.

The law discourages frivolous lawsuits intended to chill speech that would be of interest to the public.

But Wu found that it did not apply in a request for arbitration.

Boutrous on Thrusday asked the judge to reconsider, reports Variety.

'It was filed to chill speech,' he argued about the estate's demand.

'It was filed to tell the world, 'Don't talk about child sex abuse. A company like HBO may be able to fight back and move forward. Others might not be able to do that.'

John Branca, a co-executor of Jackson's estate, was not surprised by the lawyer's persistence on behalf of the network. He claimed HBO doesn't want both sides heard.

'I've never seen a media organization fight so hard to keep a secret,' he told Variety.

'We're saying let's get all the facts out there, not just two stories from two accusers with a financial interest.'

An HBO spokesperson said the network was awaiting the Judge's final decision.

'Michael may not have lived his life according to society's norms, but genius and eccentricity are not crimes. Nothing and no one can rewrite the facts which show that Michael Jackson is indeed innocent of the charges being levied at him by HBO in its 'documentary' Leaving Neverland,' states the lawsuit, which opens with a lengthy, and unorthodox, introduction.

'No one-sided 'documentary' can substitute for a real documentary, or for a trial where both sides are heard, competent evidence is presented, and witnesses are cross-examined.'

The introduction then goes after HBO, stating that the network is so 'desperate for eyeballs that its growing irrelevance to the cord-cutting generation was crystallized when its chief rival bluntly stated in its January earnings report that it considers a popular online game to be a more serious competitor than HBO.'

Robson and Safechuck are described as 'admitted perjurers, one of whom is a self-described 'master of deception,' whose litigations have played out in the courts as a failed melodrama for more than five years.'

The lawsuit goes on to state: 'With more holes in their stories than anyone can count, both view Michael Jackson, the man who they previously swore was an inspiration and did nothing to them, as a lottery ticket through accusations never brought during Michael's life.

'They never brought these claims during Michael's life, because they knew Michael would have held them both legally accountable for their defamation, just as Michael had held the 'reporter' Victor Gutierrez—who seems to be the true author of these two men's fictional tales—liable before a jury for millions of dollars when he falsely made similar claims about Jackson.'

The documentary is also biased and one-sided, according to Branca and John McClain, another co-executor of Jackson's estate, who filed the suit along with Optimum Productions.

'[Producer] Dan Reed made no attempt to review the legal records from Robson's and Safechuck's litigations with the Estate, where the judge found that Robson had lied under oath during the litigations on key issues; and where Robson was caught red-handed hiding crucial evidence from the court, from the Jackson Estate, and even from his own lawyers,' states the court record.

'Reed even ignored the fact that these men are still pursuing claims against the Jackson Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars so they have hundreds of millions of reasons to lie.'

Robson, Safechuck and Reed are not named in the suit as defendants.

'Dan Reed is an award-winning filmmaker who has carefully documented these survivors' accounts,' said HBO in a statement.

'People should reserve judgment until they see the film.'
The two-page introduction to the suit closes by naming Jackson's children as the real victims in the case.

'The real victims here are the primary beneficiaries of the Estate, Michael's three children, who are forced to endure this attack on their father, ten years after they buried him, and when he has no chance to respond,' states the lawsuit.

'Michael Jackson can never be silenced. His music and artistry live, as does his innocence. They will long outlast false claims, gossip, and allegations spread by those who seek to make money off him. In the end, this 'documentary' will say much more about HBO than it ever could about Michael Jackson.'

Later in the filing, Jackson himself is also portrayed as a victim.

'Michael Jackson had no childhood of his own. From the age of 10, he was the primary breadwinner for his very large family, and never enjoyed a normal childhood,' states the filing.

'As he explained in the only medium (songwriting) where he could explain himself: 'It's been my fate to compensate, for the childhood I've never known... Before you judge me, try hard to love me, Look within your heart then ask, Have you seen my Childhood?''

The filing then claims: 'He was arguably the most famous person on the planet but possibly also one of the loneliest.'

And it is Pepler who is the main target.

'Content has been a real problem during Richard Plepler's tenure as CEO of HBO. With the one exception of Game of Thrones, all of the cutting-edge, and now classic, original content that is associated with HBO—The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Six Feet Under, Entourage, Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc.—was from the era when Chris Albrecht ran HBO,' reads the suit.

'With Albrecht's departure in 2007, Richard Plepler took over. And Plepler has almost entirely failed where Albrecht succeeded: original content. With Netflix and others in the industry now, HBO picked the wrong time to fail in original content.'

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 settembre 2019, 16:04

Mihaela Cristian
@MihaelaCristia8

Whether in an arbitration, federal court, state court or the court of appeal, the Estate of Michael Jackson will force HBO to be held accountable for its wrongful conduct. The Estate will never stop until justice has been obtained.”
Bryan J. Freedman, attorney for MJE

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 21 settembre 2019, 9:51

Final ruling on arbitration

https://www.scribd.com/document/4267360 ... rbitration


HBO has 30 days to go on appeal which they'll probably do.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 22 settembre 2019, 21:49

https://hiphopwired.com/821471/estate-o ... nd-battle/

Estate Of Michael Jackson Earn Win Over HBO In ‘Leaving Neverland’ Battle
The judge in the case is siding with the estate, saying that they will be able to take the network to arbitration.
D.L. ChandlerWritten By D.L. Chandler
Posted September 21, 2019

Immagine

The long back and forth between the estate of Michael Jackson and HBO over the explosive Leaving Neverland documentary has come to somewhat of an end. A judge has sided with the estate and will allow them to take the network to arbitration.
Variety reports:

Judge George Wu issued a tentative ruling on Thursday in which he denied HBO’s motion to dismiss the estate’s case. Wu is expected to make the ruling final by the end of September.

The four-hour documentary features allegations of two men, James Safechuck and Wade Robson, who say they were sexually abused by Jackson over the course of several years when they were young children. The Jackson estate argues that by running the documentary, HBO violated a non-disparagement agreement from a 1992 concert film from Jackson’s “Dangerous” tour.

The estate blasted HBO for not including their rebuttal to the allegations in the film, and went to court seeking to compel a public arbitration of the contract dispute. HBO has said that the 26-year-old contract no longer applies.

HBO’s attorneys, led by Theodore Boutrous, had sought to throw out the case under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which discourages frivolous litigation intended to chill speech on issues of public interest.

The outlet updated its report later to acknowledge that the judge’s ruling is indeed final but an appeal from HBO is expected so the fight will continue in some form.

Photo: WENN

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 25 settembre 2019, 16:48

Freddie De Souza
@FreddieKevin

#MJFam #MJInnocent #MichaelJackson
MJ Estate v HBO arbitration will show (1) Agreement confidential clause on any disparaging material is in effect during and AFTER Bucharest concert. (2) In PERPETUITY, MJ Estate OWNS all rights to HBO's albeit fraudulent

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 settembre 2019, 14:21

Immagine

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 settembre 2019, 14:29

https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-ru ... d-dispute/


Judge Rules In Favor Of Michael Jackson Estate, Compelling HBO To Arbitrate ‘Leaving Neverland’ Dispute
By Jeffrey Cawood

Immagine

A federal judge in California approved a motion by Michael Jackson’s estate late last week, ruling that HBO must arbitrate a dispute over the controversial, Emmy-award winning “Leaving Neverland” documentary.

U.S. District Court Judge George H. Wu granted the request by Michael Jackson’s estate requiring HBO be bound by a 1992 arbitration agreement rather than allowing the lawsuit to continue in the federal court system. While arbitration proceedings are usually private, Jackson’s attorneys have made the unusual request of wanting to hold public arbitration.

The 27-year-old arbitration agreement was part of a contract HBO signed to televise a concert from Jackson’s Dangerous World Tour. Attorneys representing the cable network argued that the deal was no longer valid.

The decades-old pact also contains a clause which, according to Billboard, states that “HBO shall not make any disparaging remarks concerning [Michael Jackson] … or do any act that may harm or disparage or cause to lower in esteem the reputation of [Jackson.]”

Jackson’s estate maintains HBO violated that provision when it aired “Leaving Neverland,” a film accusing the late singer of molesting young boys. The deceased performer’s lawyers filed a $100 million lawsuit against HBO in February, claiming, “it is hard to imagine a more direct violation of the non-disparagement clause.” HBO’s counsel said the suit should be thrown out, alleging “it was filed to tell the world, ‘Don’t talk about child sex abuse…'”

Judge Wu, who denied HBO’s motion to dismiss the case, said that he expects his arbitration ruling to be appealed to a higher authority. According to Billboard, Wu said the conflict could eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Variety reported that John Branca, a co-executor of Jackson’s estate, accused HBO of “trying to avoid a public airing of both sides of the story.” The estate’s legal team has told media it wants arbitration proceedings to be “open to the public for all to see.”

A status conference for both parties has been scheduled for October 3, according to court documents.

“Leaving Neverland” debuted on HBO on March 3. The two-part, four-hour-long film details graphic molestation allegations from Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both of whom claim to have been sexually abused by Jackson when they were children. The narrative is shaped solely by their personal testimonies and conversations with their family members. Forbes reported earlier this year that “the film’s director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.” In April, Reed recognized the reported discovery of a significant timeline discrepancy that critics say calls the film’s credibility into question.

Both Robson and Safechuck defended Jackson’s honor when he was alive, but sued his estate alleging sex crimes after his death. The separate cases were dismissed and are currently under appeal, according to a lawyer representing both men.

Earlier this month, “Leaving Neverland” won an Emmy award in the Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special category. Jackson’s estate blasted voting members of the Television Academy for their decision, issuing a statement that read, in part: “For a film that is a complete fiction to be honored in a nonfiction Emmy category is a complete farce.”

Reed, the filmmaker, praised “the incredible courage and determination” of Robson, Safechuck, and their families after accepting the award.

“This is one of the first times we’ve been able to shine light on child sexual abuse…the pattern of how it unfolds is not an easy story to tell…it often remains undisclosed for so many decades, so I thank them from the bottom of my heart.”

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 27 settembre 2019, 21:56

Estate vs HBO Court transcripts from 19/09/19 (Hearing regarding HBO's anti-SLAPP motion)

https://www.scribd.com/document/4276...al-Sep-19-2019

The judge says that 'SLAPP' envisions a litigation, whereas an arbitration can be considered to be an agreement between parties as to a method to resolve dispute. The judge hopes that 'the Circuit' (or the Supreme Court) will resolve the issue. Hence the judge's expectation that the anti-SLAPP issue should go to appeal.

As regards HBO's comments on the Estate claim, the judge said he thought HBO were being 'somewhat pejorative'.

The judge asks if HBO is saying that the Estate 'should not have filed a lawsuit asking for arbitration before they asked for arbitration'. The judge 'doesn't understand that argument', because HBO has indicated that it is not willing to go into arbitration.

HBO is saying that the Estate lawsuit 'sends a message' that allegations should not be discussed in public or you risk a lawsuit. The judge says that it doesn't matter what the issues are; the Estate say 'they had a contract which was breached. The contract had an arbitration clause, and so they want to have arbitration'.

HBO keep saying that the Estate lawsuit doesn't mention that they want arbitration 'until page 19'. The judge asks 'if they got tired of reading before they got to page 19, and said ''gee, I could flip through the next couple of pages''.

The judge then mentions that the question of 'who decides arbitrability' is also unclear in case law, and he wants that issue also to be determined so that the matter of law is clear in future. So he's clearly saying that the SLAPP and who-decides-arbitrabilty issues need to be decided in a higher court.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 ottobre 2019, 9:29

Rasheed
@rasheedKOPV

I didn't even want to address it because it feels like groundhog day, and it does not help credibility with info.
HBO attorneys have asked for ANOTHER extension. This time for the phone conference date, pushing to 10/17/19.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 ottobre 2019, 16:49


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 12 ottobre 2019, 10:39

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some
RE: MJ Estate v HBO. Today both parties were required to file a status report. The MJ Estate is moving forward and choosing an arbitrator. HBO has not stated whether they will appeal or not. Status conference for both parties is 10/17/19.
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 18 ottobre 2019, 21:33

Rasheed
@rasheedKOPV

The MJE vs. HBO [conference update]
* At the status conference on, HBO’s lawyers said they are still deciding whether to appeal. Their deadline is Monday so they will obviously know by then. If they appeal, they said they will likely file a motion to stay the arbitration

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 19 ottobre 2019, 10:34

RE MJ Estate v HBO. Status conference on 10/17/19 and another on 10/24/19. Joint status report due on 10/22/19. As
@rasheedKOPV
has reported, HBO only has until Monday 10/21/19 to file.
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 22 ottobre 2019, 8:25

https://deadline.com/2019/10/michael-ja ... MZor91ayFs

Michael Jackson Estate Moonwalks Over HBO’s ‘Leaving Neverland’ Appeal, Calls Move “Bogus” & “Desperate”
By Dominic Patten
October 21, 2019

Immagine

The dance-off over Leaving Neverland is far far from over. Less than a month after HBO lost an attempt to get the multimillion-dollar lawsuit from the estate of Michael Jackson against the Emmy-winning documentary tossed out, and saw a federal judge shift the whole matter towards arbitration, the AT&T-owned premium cabler kicked back Monday. In a short filing, HBO’s lawyers from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and O’Melveny & Myers LLP notified the court that they intend to take the matter upstairs, so to speak.

“Please take notice that Defendant Home Box Office, Inc. hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from this Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Arbitration (the “Order”),” Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. and Daniel Petrocelli wrote the court today in a move to dispense of Judge George Wu’s ruling of September 20 against their anti-SLAPP motion in the highly charged case.

It’s pretty clearly the Jackson estate and their attorneys thought that was bad – really bad.

“This bogus appeal is nothing more than HBO’s latest desperate attempt to cover up the truth about its shoddy journalism,” Freedman & Taitelman, LLP’s Bryan Freedman said a statement this afternoon.

“For seven months HBO has tried and failed to avoid a public arbitration,” the lawyer added of the turns of the $100 million lawsuit the estate launched in late February. “This appeal, which is its latest Hail Mary attempt, is even more pathetic than all of its other attempts to avoid public scrutiny. If HBO truly wanted to avoid a judgment, it should have thought about that before it aided and abetted a one-sided documentary without any journalistic integrity and in which the subjects have a huge motivation to lie – namely the millions of dollars for which they are suing the Estate. Our client will never stop until justice is served.”
Having fist premiered at the Sundance Film Festival under threats and police protection, and then debuting on HBO to big viewership on March 3, the Dan Reed-directed Leaving Neverland spotlighted specific claims by Wade Robson and James Safechuck that they were sexually abused by Jackson back when they were children.

“HBO’s frivolous appeal to stall the court’s Order to arbitrate this dispute is yet another attempt to avoid the inevitable,” fellow Jackson estate lawyer Howard Weitzman said Monday. “Soon there will be a hearing, as the Court ordered, and damages will be awarded for HBO’s intentional and unlawful conduct,” the Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert partner added with a verbal grenade. “The real questions are what is HBO afraid of and how much will they end up paying the Estate of Michael Jackson.”

Called out as another set of smears upon the deceased pop star, the estate’s attorneys hoped to bludgeon the film, the filmmaker and the outlet by dredging up a portion of a 1992 deal between Jackson and HBO over a concert special as proof of the legal miscarriage by the premium cabler. That citation of the almost three-decade old agreement didn’t get much movement for the estate, and the case moved out of L.A. Superior Court to federal court in early March for jurisdictional reasons.

The August 15 move to dismiss from HBO’s legal team came following a ruling in late May by U.S. District Court judge Wu to stop the Jackson estate’s desire to have the matter shut away behind closed doors and be decided by the American Arbitration Association. The estate also lost out in its aim to have the lawsuit sent back to state court. Last month, the often-unpredictable Wu went the other way and bundled together a series of rulings to put the matter in open arbitration.

From that point on, the HBO appeal was basically a done deal waiting to happen.

Coming as WarnerMedia gets ready to put its HBO Max streaming service on the launch pad next year and some ornery shareholders kick up dust about AT&T’s purchase of DirecTV and a few other corporate decisions, the Jackson estate is now out for legal blood.

“This is a cover-up,” asserts estate co-executor John Branca of the appeal move by HBO. “If HBO truly believed that their desperate attempt to grab ratings was true, accurate, and fair, they would not be so strenuously avoiding a public reckoning of this junk programming which has become known as the Lies of Leaving Neverland,” he kitchen sinks and then some. “The agenda is set at the top. Stockholders are questioning HBO’s leadership.”

Before his death from a prescription drug overdose in 2009, Jackson settled a previous child abuse claim in 1993 and was acquitted of other such charges in 2005.

A HBO spokesperson said today of their appeal: “We don’t have anything to add beyond what was previously stated in our papers.”

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 23 ottobre 2019, 9:22

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

RE MJ Estate v HBO. HBO has not only filed a motion for appeal against the ruling for arbitration, but they now have told the Estate and judge they will file a motion for a stay in the case until the appeal has been resolved.
@Hammertonhal
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 24 ottobre 2019, 15:03

https://allhiphop.com/news/hbo-appeals- ... OOXojIPqCU

HBO Appeals Loss In Michael Jackson "Leaving Neverland" Legal War

Immagine

HBO is not going quietly over their loss in a lawsuit over a 1992 non-disparagement clause they signed with Michael Jackson's estate.

(AllHipHop News) Bosses at HBO are heading back to court to contest the decision for their case against the Michael Jackson Estate to go to arbitration over its Emmy-winning "Leaving Neverland" documentary.

The late King of Pop's estate is attempting to enforce a non-disparagement clause in a 1992 contract, which provided HBO with rights to air a televised concert following the release of Jackson's album Dangerous.

The estate claims the network broke the terms of the agreement when it aired the Dan Reed-directed flick, which focuses on allegations of sexual abuse against Jackson by two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who knew the "Bad" singer when they were children.

The estate vehemently denies the allegations made against the hitmaker.

HBO previously had the case removed to federal court and attacked it as a "transparent effort to bolster their publicity campaign against the documentary."

However, despite arguing the legal claims are premised on an old agreement that has been fully performed by the parties and thus terminated and is attempting to trample on its First Amendment rights by resurrecting the old contract, U.S. District Court Judge George H. Wu sent the case to arbitration in September.

Now, officials from the network are taking the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, at the advice of Judge Wu, although the grounds for the filing remain as yet unknown.
Bryan Freedman, an attorney for the Michael Jackson Estate, slammed the network's "bogus appeal," adding: "This appeal, which is its latest Hail Mary attempt, is even more pathetic than all of its other attempts to avoid public scrutiny... Our client will never stop until justice is served."

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 29 ottobre 2019, 9:15

HBO requests a 'stay' until after the appeal is heard. :???:


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 2 novembre 2019, 8:41

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

RE MJ Estate v HBO: The MJ Estate has filed their opposition to HBO's request to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.
@Hammertonhal

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 5 novembre 2019, 15:46

Rasheed
@rasheedKOPV
The MJE vs. HBO [Reminder: 11.5.19]

* Five days after The MJE replied to HBO's appeal, HBO will be submitting their response. Both will be in court this Thursday, on the 7th.

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 6 novembre 2019, 9:38

Rasheed
@rasheedKOPV

HBO argues nothing new today:
* 1st amendment
* tries to explain why their appeal is not 'frivolous'
* Says a stay would not hurt plaintiff's
* They claim public interest is strong, due to the 1st amendment.
10:47 PM · Nov 5, 2019

Pt 1. My take: The fact that no new arguments are being made shows that they are simply stalling. To argue that HBO's stance would not hurt earnings is nonsense. Also, reiterating the first amendment while it's been expressed by the judge that 'non disparagement' is redundant.

pt. 2:Stating that public interest in the film is strong because of interest in upholding the 1st amendment speaks directly to the lack of substance in the film.
The film on its own has strong critical acceptance and has been a public flop.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 7 novembre 2019, 15:01

Rasheed
@rasheedKOPV

A big legal day:
The MJE vs. HBO [11.7.19]
* We have gotten both responses to HBO's appeal and today both sides will face off in court.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 7 novembre 2019, 21:13

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

RE MJ Estate v HBO. Just heard from the fan who was inside the courtroom. She said it looks like the judge will rule for the stay. I'm sorry to bring the bad news. I have no confirmation of a ruling, so there is still the slight hope, but it looks like HBO will receive stay.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 8 novembre 2019, 9:33

:???:

Robert
@Robert20039469
·
11h
Sadly Judge Wu has granted HBOs request to stay Which means that the whole arbitration issue won't be resolved for at least a year. Dissapointing but all we can do now is focus on Wade's upcoming appeal which I hope ( as we all do).will be dismissed

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 8 novembre 2019, 9:58

Charles Thomson
@CEThomson
THREAD: Happened to be in town, so popped into the courthouse in downtown Los Angeles this morning, to sit in on the latest hearing in the Michael Jackson Estate's lawsuit against HBO over Leaving Neverland. This is a broad rundown of the latest.

Jackson Estate is suing HBO over Leaving Neverland. Inadequate defamation laws typically leave the deceased & their reps with no recourse against unproven allegations, but the Estate says in this case HBO breached a non-disparagement clause in a contract over an old concert film.

HBO says the documentary is journalism and thus protected speech. Jackson Estate says it is not journalism and is in fact a deliberately deceptive piece of non-journalism.
Jackson Estate is fighting for public arbitration over the integrity of the show in order to prove this.

Judge George H Wu has dismissed HBO's claims that the contract is old and void, and has ruled in favour of the Estate's request for arbitration. HBO is appealing that ruling and requested a stay, pending that appeal.
Today's hearing was for a ruling on the stay.

This morning Wu handed down a tentative judgement granting HBO a stay, pending their appeal. The judgement suggested failure to do so posed a reasonable threat of 'irreparable harm' to HBO's first amendment right to freedom of speech.
Both sides then argued their positions.

Howard Weitzman, for the Estate, said: "In my opinion, you've taken a typical breach of contract case... [and] you're turning it into something it's not."
He questioned how HBO could reasonably claim 'irreparable harm' when it has continued airing the show after the ruling.

Judge Wu said he had already ruled on 'the merits' of the case when he agreed to send it for arbitration. Today, he said, "the question is whether I stay, pending an appeal... Your party sued to compel arbitration. I'm staying the arbitration that you have won."

Wu: "This case is, to my mind, quite unique. I've never seen anything quite like it before and of course, that makes for bad law."
Weitzman: "Well don't make any more bad law!"
Wu: "I like to create a trail of interesting bon mots for the Court of Appeal to consider."

Jonathan Steinsapir, for the Estate, said: "The idea that arbitration is irreparable harm has been rejected by every court to look at that."

He continued: "They gave you no law that says arbitration will be irreparable injury. Once you find a valid arbitration clause, the only job of a federal court is to send it to arbitration... Where is the evidence? It's their burden."

Judge Wu responded that the arbitration clause was in 'a 27-year-old contract that has nothing to do with the documentary itself'.
But Steinsapir argued the age of the contract was irrelevant, as Wu had already ruled.
He said: "They used footage from that concert in the documentary... The idea that this does not relate to the contract is prejudging the merits of the arbitration."
Wu to Steinsapir: "I've made my ruling and the ruling is in your favour. But I have doubts about whether I was correct in making that ruling. I would kind of like the circuit to get involved."

Steinsapir told Wu he should not acquiesce to HBO's 'hand-waving' about the first amendment: "You've not seen a single piece of evidence that anybody has been chilled in their speech."

He continued: "Where is the evidence of this irreparable harm? Attorney argument is not evidence. They gave you no evidence. Not a single declaration. Nothing. You can't get an injunction or a stay without evidence."

He said the stay would significantly extend the litigation, arguing: "Their own cases make clear that speedy resolution is necessary. If their first amendment defences have any merit, they should want them resolved."
Bryan Freedman - who previously defended Eddie Cascio & James Porte in Vera Serova's class action lawsuit over allegedly fake songs on a posthumous Michael Jackson album - also appeared today on behalf of the Jackson Estate.
He said: "I understand you're unsure about the underlying issue & would like the 9th Circuit to give you some direction, but you can't disregard the standards for irreparable harm & that's what's been done here. You provide no reason at all why HBO would suffer irreparable harm."

Wu said he didn't apply typical standards because it was 'not a typical arbitration situation'.
Freedman replied: "But how it arises and the substance of whether a 27yo contract is enforceable or not is not for Your Honour to decide."

Freedman: "We think it is a typical situation... [HBO] are big boys. They know what they are doing. They agree to terms. It's a simple breach of contract case. For the court to say it's untypical doesn't make any sense."

Freedman argued there was no legal reason why the non-disparagement clause should hold more or less weight than any other clause, saying that if HBO today breached the copyright terms of the same document, it would be an open and shut matter.

Freedman suggested Wu was aiding the defence and delaying the case.
He said: "It's only unusual because you've made suggestions for them to take. They did not file a SLAPP motion. Your Honour suggested they file a SLAPP. Now they want to take it to the Court of Appeal."

He continued: "What's irreparable harm is the harm to us in not being able to put forth our case to an arbitrator. You're going to make us delay over 30 months before we even get a selection of an arbitrator. Arbitration is supposed to be a process that's speedy."
Wu replied: "But ultimately, you are looking for money, which is not irreparable harm when it has been delayed."
Wu then invited Daniel Petrocelli to speak for HBO. He argued the 'irreparable harm' was that 'first amendment interests are threatened in multiple ways'.

Petrocelli said the appeal was unusually significant as in most similar cases, 'the ultimate question to be decided by the 9th Circuit [is] whether it proceeds in arbitration or in court'. But in this case, a successful appeal would end the whole lawsuit.

He said: "Pending the outcome of this appeal, the case may be over once and for all."
He then argued the contract was void: "When a contract is over and it's been over for 27 years, you can't invoke the arbitration provision in that contract."

Freedman replied: "The contract is not over. It exists. Because a contract is dated 27 years ago, does not terminate the contract. The contract continues to this day."
Wu said although he'd let Petrocelli voice that argument, he was 'not concerned with the merits' at this stage.

Wu: "I'm just considering whether or not there's a basis to grant the motion for a stay... A serious first amendment issue puts it into a potential irreparable harm situation."

Wu concluded: "I'm not here to enforce contracts. I'm here to do justice and follow the law as I see it. In terms of whether or not to grant the motion for a stay, I'm following the law as I see it... I will make my tentative judgement my final judgement."
Thus concluded the hearing.

I was sat quite far back in the courtroom and straining to hear at times, so some quotes may be inexact. I'm sure some helpful person will make an official transcript available soon enough.
Bit of a busman's holiday, but nice to be back in court.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 9 novembre 2019, 10:54

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some
RE MJ Estate v HBO. Judge Wu's explanation as to why he ordered the stay pending appeal.


Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 12 novembre 2019, 20:49

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

Just wanted to reiterate, re MJ Estate v HBO, the appeal has been filed in the Ninth District court, and things are moving along. It will be a slow process, so please be patient. In the end, we're all hoping that HBO will be held accountable.
Immagine
Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 13 novembre 2019, 8:00

Justice for The Falsely Accused liked
TSCM
@MJJRepository

Estate has confirmed they'll be pursuing new discovery in Wade's case if remanded to trial court.
They specifically mention this will include:
"Robson's extensive public statements and interviews, and his appearance in a four-hour 'documentary' relating to the allegations."
:)

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 20 novembre 2019, 9:08

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some
Re MJ Estate v HBO: Both parties are required to decide whether they want to enter mediation (settlement) talks. One or both parties declined, so there will be NO settlement in this case.

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 14 dicembre 2019, 20:43

:)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... 6448280992

HBO fails to get $100 MILLION suit against Michael Jackson's estate tossed out of court after it sued the network for airing 'Leaving Neverland' and 'violating' a non-disparaging agreement signed 26 years ago
Judge George Wu sided with late singer's estate who filed the suit against HBO
He indicated that he may grant a request for arbitration in an upcoming ruling
Jackson's estate is demanding $100 million, claiming that airing the doc breached a 1992 non-disparagement clause signed by the King of Pop
As he movie suggests that Jackson sexually abused children on that tour, the estate argues it is in 'direct violation of the non-disparagement clause'
The filing also calls the two men at the center of the documentary, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, 'admitted perjurers'
By CHRIS SPARGO FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 21:45, 19 September 2019

Michael Jackson's estate looks like it could be heading into arbitration with HBO over its airing of the documentary Leaving Neverland, which it argues violated a 1992 non-disparagement clause signed by the King of Pop.

Judge George Wu denied a motion Thursday to dismiss the estate's case against the cable network, indicating that he may decide to grant a request for arbitration when he issues final ruling by September's end, reports Variety.

The estate, in a $100 million lawsuit it filed against HBO, accuses the broadcaster of breaching a contract that was signed by the Jackson back in 1992 when his Dangerous World Tour aired on the premium cable channel.

The suit argues that the documentary does this by suggesting that Jackson molested children while he was on the Dangerous World Tour.

'It is hard to imagine a more direct violation of the non-disparagement clause,' declares the suit.

It also calls the two men at the center of the documentary, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, 'admitted perjurers,' and mocks current HBO president Richard Pepler, calling him a 'failure'.

Leaving Neverland premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January and was later broadcast in two parts on March 3 and 4.

Immagine

The estate, upset with HBO for not including its rebuttal to the allegations in the documentary, now wants the court to approve the arbitration request to resolve the contract dispute.

HBO has resisted, saying the agreement - which has been in place for 26 years - no longer applies.

Attorney Theodore Boutrous, one of the lawyers representing HBO, had tried to throw the case out under California's anti-SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public participation, law.

The law discourages frivolous lawsuits intended to chill speech that would be of interest to the public.

But Wu found that it did not apply in a request for arbitration.

Boutrous on Thrusday asked the judge to reconsider, reports Variety.

'It was filed to chill speech,' he argued about the estate's demand.

'It was filed to tell the world, 'Don't talk about child sex abuse. A company like HBO may be able to fight back and move forward. Others might not be able to do that.'

John Branca, a co-executor of Jackson's estate, was not surprised by the lawyer's persistence on behalf of the network. He claimed HBO doesn't want both sides heard.

'I've never seen a media organization fight so hard to keep a secret,' he told Variety.

'We're saying let's get all the facts out there, not just two stories from two accusers with a financial interest.'

An HBO spokesperson said the network was awaiting the Judge's final decision.

'Michael may not have lived his life according to society's norms, but genius and eccentricity are not crimes. Nothing and no one can rewrite the facts which show that Michael Jackson is indeed innocent of the charges being levied at him by HBO in its 'documentary' Leaving Neverland,' states the lawsuit, which opens with a lengthy, and unorthodox, introduction.

'No one-sided 'documentary' can substitute for a real documentary, or for a trial where both sides are heard, competent evidence is presented, and witnesses are cross-examined.'

The introduction then goes after HBO, stating that the network is so 'desperate for eyeballs that its growing irrelevance to the cord-cutting generation was crystallized when its chief rival bluntly stated in its January earnings report that it considers a popular online game to be a more serious competitor than HBO.'

Robson and Safechuck are described as 'admitted perjurers, one of whom is a self-described 'master of deception,' whose litigations have played out in the courts as a failed melodrama for more than five years.'

The lawsuit goes on to state: 'With more holes in their stories than anyone can count, both view Michael Jackson, the man who they previously swore was an inspiration and did nothing to them, as a lottery ticket through accusations never brought during Michael's life.

'They never brought these claims during Michael's life, because they knew Michael would have held them both legally accountable for their defamation, just as Michael had held the 'reporter' Victor Gutierrez—who seems to be the true author of these two men's fictional tales—liable before a jury for millions of dollars when he falsely made similar claims about Jackson.'

The documentary is also biased and one-sided, according to Branca and John McClain, another co-executor of Jackson's estate, who filed the suit along with Optimum Productions.

'[Producer] Dan Reed made no attempt to review the legal records from Robson's and Safechuck's litigations with the Estate, where the judge found that Robson had lied under oath during the litigations on key issues; and where Robson was caught red-handed hiding crucial evidence from the court, from the Jackson Estate, and even from his own lawyers,' states the court record.

'Reed even ignored the fact that these men are still pursuing claims against the Jackson Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars so they have hundreds of millions of reasons to lie.'

Robson, Safechuck and Reed are not named in the suit as defendants.

'Dan Reed is an award-winning filmmaker who has carefully documented these survivors' accounts,' said HBO in a statement.

'People should reserve judgment until they see the film.'
The two-page introduction to the suit closes by naming Jackson's children as the real victims in the case.

'The real victims here are the primary beneficiaries of the Estate, Michael's three children, who are forced to endure this attack on their father, ten years after they buried him, and when he has no chance to respond,' states the lawsuit.

'Michael Jackson can never be silenced. His music and artistry live, as does his innocence. They will long outlast false claims, gossip, and allegations spread by those who seek to make money off him. In the end, this 'documentary' will say much more about HBO than it ever could about Michael Jackson.'

Later in the filing, Jackson himself is also portrayed as a victim.

'Michael Jackson had no childhood of his own. From the age of 10, he was the primary breadwinner for his very large family, and never enjoyed a normal childhood,' states the filing.

'As he explained in the only medium (songwriting) where he could explain himself: 'It's been my fate to compensate, for the childhood I've never known... Before you judge me, try hard to love me, Look within your heart then ask, Have you seen my Childhood?''

The filing then claims: 'He was arguably the most famous person on the planet but possibly also one of the loneliest.'

And it is Pepler who is the main target.

'Content has been a real problem during Richard Plepler's tenure as CEO of HBO. With the one exception of Game of Thrones, all of the cutting-edge, and now classic, original content that is associated with HBO—The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Six Feet Under, Entourage, Sex and the City, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc.—was from the era when Chris Albrecht ran HBO,' reads the suit.

'With Albrecht's departure in 2007, Richard Plepler took over. And Plepler has almost entirely failed where Albrecht succeeded: original content. With Netflix and others in the industry now, HBO picked the wrong time to fail in original content.'

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 26 dicembre 2019, 9:50

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some
Well,
@TruthAndLaw8
was right. HBO has asked for an extension for the due date for their opening brief against the MJ Estate. New date is 2/28/20 for HBO, response by Estate due 3/30/20. RE MJ Estate v HBO.

Immagine

Avatar utente
soulmum
Utente certificato
Utente certificato
Messaggi: 9304
Iscritto il: 31 maggio 2016, 12:43

Re: Estate v HBO regarding Leaving Neverland/Arbitration

Messaggio da soulmum » 30 gennaio 2020, 9:12

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

HBO's deadline to file their opening brief is due in just about a month. I'm sure we'll see the same arguments, first amendment, etc. Due date for brief is 2/28/20. #MJEstatevHBO

Rispondi