Thread by @MJJRepository

THREAD: Estate's Renewed Demurrer Motion in Safechuck's Case

This week, MJ's team has filed the anticipated demurrer motion in Safechuck's case, refreshing claims that the prior judge & appellate never ruled on.

A tentative in-person hearing on this demurer will be Oct 16 2020.

The estate argues JS' claims are fatally defective—"No amendment can cure these defects."

1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
2. Negligence
3. Negligent Supervision
4. Negligent Retention/Hiring
5. Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, Educate
6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The estate summarizes how James never bothered appealing the original dismissal against the estate.

Instead, James (like Wade) shifted their financially motivated claims by "artfully attempting to recharacterize the alleged misconduct as 'negligence' of the two corporations."

The estate contends that James' allegations are "rife with easily proven falsehoods" and refers to the claims as "legal fiction" but acknowledges that the Court, in deciding the demurrer, has to treat the pleadings as if undisputed to determine the legal substance of the causes.

The estate rightfully points out how the companies cannot be directly liable for any alleged molestation.

Therefore, Wade/James (after Finaldi took over) withdrew the molestation claims in favor of "failure to protect" as a way to shoe-in a hopeful payout from the companies.

The estate explains that the negligence causes all fail because no facts establish the corporations had duty to protect, given existing legal precedent, why they befriended MJ, and especially when the alleged conduct had nothing to do with the corporations (solely owned by MJ).

Another argument from Safechuck (and one attempted by Finaldi in almost every failed depo) is that the companies were supposed to be "mandatory reporters."

Safechuck provided no supporting facts that the corporations or staff were child care custodians or directly supervised MJ.

Continuing, the estate argues that the "negligent supervision & negligent hiring" is also without merit.

The corporations obviously "did not hire, retain, or supervise MJ—their owner, president, sole shareholder, and sole reason for existence."

Another preposterous claim by JS.

Regarding "Negligent Failure to Train, Warn, or Educate," the estate again explains that it lacks any legal basis or foundation, even using Finaldi's own filings to sell the point.

The companies were established to conduct MJ's music business, not to train or educate families.

Another claim is for "Intentional Infliction of emotional distress." (Finaldi originally hinted at removing this when he removed the molestation claims.)

James fails to support any of this, especially how the companies supposedly conducted "extreme & outrageous conduct."

Finally, the estate contends that Safechuck has no grounds to allege that the corporations now being sued were his fiduciaries.

Even stretching it to an "employer" relationship would fall flat, since James has no evidence of any employment in 1988-1992 with MJ or his companies.

In the footnotes the estate includes:

- Reference to James' 2nd amended complaint where negligent supervision was dismissed. JS admits in 3rd complaint the corporations were "incapable of supervising" him.

- Why Pamela L. v. Farmer is misplaced—very different circumstances.