Jackson's motion for leave to amend
Jackson motion
Jackson lawyers have filed a motion to amend their complaint to add a claim of negligence.
Jackson lawyers state their original complaint first claim was dismissed by the judge because the judge ruled there was no "duty of care". Jackson lawyers argue that the evidence presented has established a duty of care and allege that AEG performed their contractual duties as producer negligently (paragraph 8 of the contract list AEG's duties)
Evidence to show AEG breached its duty
- Hiring of a physician creating conflict of interest
- Norm was to decline the hiring request and require MJ hire his own physician
- Insertion of AEG into negotiations creating conflict of interest
- Murray’s contract terms written by AEG and giving AEG termination power
- Demand of $5 Million being a red flag
- Abrupt drop to $150,000 a month should have raised a red flag that the services were illicit
- Amount of $150,000 should raised a red flag Murray would be providing drugs to Michael
- Threat of losing $150,000 would create pressure for Murray
- AEG’s communications with Murray inferred with patient-doctor relationship
- Allowed Murray act as MJ’s physician despite red flags
- Failed to realize the deterioration and halt the production until MJ was assessed by specialists
- Failed to remove Murray when Michael was deteriorating under his care
- False statements to Ortega and others
- Creating pressure for both Michael and Murray with no cancellation insurance to cover the increased production costs
- Resulted in drastic measures taken by Michael and Murray on June 25th
AEG’s opposition
AEG is opposing the above motion saying that the negligence claim was dismissed during summary judgment and by law it cannot be revisited. AEG specially points out the part in Jacksons motion where they have said they raised the contract issues before.
AEG also argues that everything Jacksons list is actually the same elements of their negligent hiring claim and is not a general negligence claim. They list where some of the above elements were mentioned during summary judgment and state that law states same facts cannot support negligent hiring and general negligence.