The purpose of this redirect is currently being discussed by the Wikipedia community. The outcome of the discussion may result in a change of this page, or possibly its deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this redirect's entry on the redirects for discussion page. Click on the link below to go to the current destination page. Please notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect by placing {{subst:Rfd notice|Safechuck v. MJJ Productions}}~~~~ on their talk page.
Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, Inc. is a lawsuit in the California state courts which led to a 2023 ruling by the California Courts of Appeal holding that a corporation enabling child abuse by one of its employees is not freed from its affirmative duty to warn and protect such vulnerable children simply because the perpetrator was the corporation's sole owner.[1]
Background
The plaintiffs in the consolidated case were two individuals, James Safechuck and Wade Robson who developed close relationships with Jackson as young performers. They alleged that Jackson sexually molested them numerous times during their relationship.
The now-adult men claimed that in the 1980s and 1990s the defendant corporations, owned by the famous pop star Michael Jackson, enabled and "operated a sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization, designed to locate, attract, lure, and seduce victims.[2]
The plaintiffs asserted that they were repeatedly victimized as vulnerable children by Jackson with the full complicity of the defendant corporations. The abuse, they alleged, was enabled by staff who were paid to retrieve, care for the children, and deliver them to Jackson as part of the abuse.[3]
The lower court threw out the claims, stating that the companies had no legal duty to protect the boys from abuse.[4][5] The plaintiffs appealed the ruling.
Procedural history
On October 20, 2020, a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young dismissed a lawsuit filed by Safechuck against Jackson's two corporations, MJJ Productions Inc., and MJJ Ventures Inc.[6][7] Both accusers filed their sex abuse lawsuits in 2013 and 2014 respectively, which were dismissed at first for being beyond thr statute of limitations.[8]
in October 2020, California governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law extending the time period for individuals alleging childhood sexual abuse to file lawsuits.[9] Following this revival due to new legislation regarding abuse claims, the lawsuits would nevertheless dismissed on the grounds that Jackson's companies had no legal obligation to protect them from alleged sex abuse.[10][11] In his dismissal of Safechuck's lawsuit, Young also ruled that Safechuck had failed to demonstrate that Jackson's companies had a legal duty to protect children from alleged abuse by Jackson.[12][13] Safechuck and Robson appealed.[14]
Ruling
The corporate defendants' assertion that they lacked control over Jackson and the plaintiffs' well-being due to his status as their sole shareholder was dismissed by the appellate court.[15][16] Said the court: "[W]e reject the notion that defendants were powerless to do anything about [alleged] abuse that was ongoing since 1990, including alerting the authorities and refraining from facilitating the abuse."[1]
Current status
The appellate court sent the two cases back down to the trial court for further proceedings.[17] Trial is scheduled for November 2026 and the plaintiffs request $400 million according to legal fee disputes between the estate and Jackson's daughter, Paris Jackson.[18][19]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
