Michael Jackson – Sexual Assault Case Against Him Reopened Thanks To New California Law
The lawsuit from the men featured in last year’s “Leaving Neverland” documentary is back on.
Robson first filed a lawsuit in 2013 and Safechuck in 2014 against Michael Jackson’s MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, stating that the companies were responsible for the alleged assault. But back then, California law stated that childhood sex assault lawsuits against third parties had to be filed before the alleged victim turned 26-years-old, with a handful of exceptions. Considering this, an L.A. Superior Court Judge (Mitchell Beckloff) tossed out the claims, ruling that they didn’t meet the requirements to continue their lawsuit.
But recently, The Golden State changed its laws, and alleged victims can now file a lawsuit before their 40th birthday. Considering the change, a California appeals court reopened the case, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
The legal counsel for Michael Jackson’s estate, Howard Weitzman, released a statement Friday (Jan. 3).
“Contrary to reports, the Court of Appeal did NOT revive the lawsuits by Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck against the Estate of Michael Jackson. Both of those lawsuits were dismissed in 2016 and the judgments in favor of the Estate and against Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck remain FINAL. Both men admitted in those cases that they committed perjury. The Court of Appeal’s ruling merely revived lawsuits against Michael Jackson’s companies, which absurdly claim that Michael’s employees are somehow responsible for sexual abuse that never happened. The ruling was the result of a change in the law signed by Governor Newsom that extends the time for genuine victims to file claims. The Court of Appeal specifically did not address the truth of these false allegations, and we are confident that both lawsuits will be dismissed and that Michael Jackson will be vindicated once again.”
The lawyer for James Safechuck and Wade Robson also released a statement to address the new developments.
“We’re very pleased that the California Court of Appeals recognizes the strong protections California has for sexual abuse victims as well as the extended statute of limitations period for them to come forward,” he says. “We look forward to continuing litigation of these cases as we prepare to present them to a jury at trial. It’s really interesting how [Weitzman] can comment on the facts of whether the abuse happened or not when he wasn’t there. Anything he has to say he can tell to a jury and I look forward to it. We’re going to prove him wrong in court.”
What are your thoughts on the case being opened again? Tell us in the comments.