WHY WAS WADE'S LAWSUIT DISMISSED IN 2015 AND 2017?

March 16, 2020

Rest assured, it wasn't due to falsehood.

In brief, the dismissal stemmed from legal technicalities.

The longer explanation is somewhat intricate:

Wade initiated a lawsuit against the MJ Estate in 2013. Following multiple rounds of "discovery" and motions, the probate court dismissed it in 2015, citing Wade's untimely filing, which surpassed the statute of limitations. At that juncture in California, an abuse victim had until their 26th birthday to lodge a claim. Advocates for MJ propagated the falsehood that the Judge dismissed the lawsuit due to scepticism about Wade's affidavit. 

Plaintiff correctly notes that equitable estoppel is an issue only because the applicable time deadlines for his claim have already run.

View the screenshot of the document here.

Wade persisted in challenging that decision, this time pursuing a different avenue by initiating a lawsuit against two companies affiliated with the Estate: MJJ Productions, Inc. and MJJ Ventures, Inc. MJJ contended that the lawsuit exceeded the statute of limitations. However, under the law, an exception to the statute exists if the companies were aware of or had reason to know about an employee's unlawful sexual conduct and failed to take necessary measures to prevent it. Therefore, in order for Wade's claim to be considered, it was imperative for at least one pertinent fact to establish whether the plaintiff's action falls within the exception to the Statute of Limitations.

The judge stated:

Defendants produce evidence to support their theory that they had no ability to control Michael Jackson. There is no dispute Michael Jackson was the 100 sole shareholder/owner of defendants during his lifetime. Until June 1, 1994, Michael Jackson was also the sole director for both corporate defendants. On June 1, 1994, as the sole shareholder, Michael Jackson increased the size of the Board of Directors for both corporate defendants from one to four.

Based on such facts and Corporations Code section 303, subdivision (a) and section 603, subdivisions (a) and (d), defendants demonstrate no one other than Michael Jackson had the legal ability or authority to control Michael Jackson. 

View the screenshot of the document here.

Once again, the judge decreed that Michael Jackson's full and complete ownership of the companies superimposed his authority and ability (of the companies) to control him. Without control over Michael Jackson, the companies could not impose "reasonable safeguards" or take "reasonable measures" to prevent acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by Michael Jackson.

In essence, the companies cannot be held responsible for any misconduct on MJ's part, as he controlled their conduct, not the other way around. Additionally, MJJ argued that summary judgment was warranted because Wade would have had to demonstrate that he was exposed to MJJ as part of an environment created by the companies to qualify for the exception to the age limit of 26. The judge concluded that "the defendants' relationship with Michael Jackson did not result in the exposure of the plaintiff to the alleged sexual abuse (...) These facts distinguish this case from those in which the sexual abuse suffered was directly related to the inherent relationship between the perpetrator and the entity such as a teacher/school, or priest/church.

This implies that Wade's access to and exposure to MJ stemmed directly from MJ's personal fame, and it wasn't something for which the companies could be held responsible. Importantly, the judge did not rule on the credibility of Wade's allegations in the judgment.

Here defendants' relationship with Michael Jackson did not result in the exposure of plaintiff to the alleged sexual abuse. Defendants' involvement with Michael Jackson and plaintiff was incidental to the alleged sexual abuse. These facts distinguish this case from those where the sexual abuse suffered was directly related to the inherent relationship between the perpetrator and the entity such as teacher/school, scout master/scouting organization, priest/church or coach/youth sports organization.

View a screenshot of the document here.

In conclusion, on both occasions, the claims were dismissed due to technicalities pertaining to exceptions to the statute of limitations. AB218, an extension of the time to file a child sexual abuse lawsuit, was enacted in October of last year and came into effect at the start of this year. Hence, Wade now has a new opportunity to file his lawsuit. However, the prospect of prevailing in this new endeavor presents a distinct challenge.