So let me explain what exactly changed in the California Code of Civil Procedure that enabled Wade Robson and James Safechuck to save their cases from being dismissed and what this means for the future.
The relevant part of the law is CCP 340.1. Here is how it looked so far. Because both Robson and Safechuck filed their lawsuits when they were past their 26th birthday that meant that so far the (b)(2) section of the law - the last paragraph - applied to them. 
(a)(1) section does not apply because here the accused is dead. You can't sue a dead natural person. Which makes sense because since Roman law it is a basic human right of anyone accused to be able to face their accuser and defend themselves.
To circumvent that Robson and Safechuck are suing MJ's companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures . This is why they have to make up all those contrived tales about MJ's companies being this sophisticated CSA mafia and his secretary being a "madame".
It's misleading to claim that victims of CSA did not have a chance so far to sue if they were above 26. They could directly sue their abuser, if they were alive, even if the accuser was above 26.
The only obstacle they had was that they had some limits to suing third parties that were allegedly responsible for their abuse.
They could still sue them, only they had to prove that those third parties (typically schools or churches) knew or had a reason to know of their abuse and that they had control over the abuser.
I think that is pretty reasonable.
I think that is pretty reasonable.
But since we are in the MeToo era politicians are now bending over backwards to create an environment which IMO is not really fair to both parties, but is heavily in favor of accusers. So let's see how the law changed now.
This is the new text of the law. So what changed? First of all the term "sexual abuse" changed to "sexual assault". More importantly for us "the plaintiff's 26th birthday" changed to "the plaintiff's 40 birthday".
There's also a new part inserted about cover up.
Because "plaintiff's 26th birthday" changed to "40th birthday", that means from now on it is not the (c) section [in the previous law that was (b)(2)] that applies here any more, but (2) (3) and the new cover up section which is now the new (b)(1) and (2).
So this is what we are focusing now!
With the old law our focus was this part. All legal arguments revolved around whether the companies knew or had a reason to know and whether they had control over MJ.
Since MJ was the 100% owner of his companies he had control over them, they didn't have control over him, so the lawsuits were thrown out based on the basis that the companies could not control MJ, therefore Robson and Safechuck can't fulfill the requirements of (b)(2).
Now all of those arguments go out the window. We start it all over, with a focus on a different part of the law, namely what I posted above, but here it is again:
So basically now the legal discussion will be about duty of care and whether the companies had a duty of care for Robson and/or Safechuck. Then whether any intentional act by the companies was the legal cause of their alleged CSA. And whether the companies engaged in a cover up.
Mind you in case someone takes Robson and Safechuck's allegations at face value, the (a)(2) is tailor made for their mothers! They definitely had a duty of care for their sons and if their sons' allegations are true then they were negligent which was the legal cause of the CSA.
So instead of doing mental gymnastics to try to make the MJ companies fit these requirements, why don't they act upon what is right in front of them and sue their mothers? You don't say it IS about the money, after all?
