WHY WAS JAMES SAFECHUCK'S LAWSUIT DISMISSED IN 2017?

March 17, 2020

James's lawsuit was dismissed in 2017 for reasons similar to Wade's case. However, James's dismissal resulted from a demurrer rather than a summary judgment. A demurrer is a response in a court proceeding wherein the defendant does not contest the truth of the accusation but asserts that it does not justify legal action. James encountered a challenge in establishing an employment relationship with the companies to hold them accountable for the abuse.

In essence, the 2014 case was dismissed in July 2017, with the judge noting that James "filed his action 10 years late, and his action is precluded by the statute of limitations," echoing the circumstances of Wade's lawsuit in 2015.

Furthermore, the judge refuted James' legal argument linking his allegations to the companies being sued, asserting that "There is a legal duty only when there is a relationship and some ability to control the author".

James asserted that he was hired in the late '80s by the two touring companies, but MJJ ventures only filed articles of incorporation until 1991 (before that it was not legally established), so it would be excluded from any abuse. Regarding James' employment with MJJ Ventures and MJJ productions in 1995, the judge stated that: "This employment appears to the court to be a more traditional and formal employment relationship than the alleged employment relationship that took place in 1988 (...) While it's not entirely clear when the sexual abuse ceased, it appears that the sexual abuse continued until 1992, when James reached puberty. That is, the companies would not be liable for any abuse because the abuse did not occur during the time James was hired."

One could argue that if James were fabricating his story, he would have placed his abuse at the time he was hired to have a cause of action.

"As plaintiff cannot allege some ability to control 100 percent of the shareholders and owners of the defendant entities that perpetrated the abuse under these circumstances, these causes of action cannot stand (the defense's motion to dismiss)," the judge wrote in the ruling (page 18).

The outcome mirrors that of Wade's case: the companies are not held liable, and the claim was time-barred, rendering James unable to meet the exception to surpass the statute of limitations.

With the extension of the statute of limitations in California and the court granting permission for both cases, we can only remain hopeful for the best possible outcome.