‘Pau! J00) 40N :n0-3do SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEM woNorasts MITCHELL L, BECKLOFF super] D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE, suDGE PRO TaN [ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONTTOR NONE Depry Shei] NONE, Reporte 8:30 am/BC508502 Pointe Coansel WADE ROBSON. NO APPEARANCES vs. Defendaat, DOH 1, ET AL Coane RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER; (Motion for Summary Judgment /Adjudication) Thig matter is before the court on defendants! motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication: The court ruled from the bench on the parties’ esta for judicial notice and evidentiary objections. After argument, the court took the matter under submission. Having considered the matter further, the court now finds/orders as follows: Plaintiff alleges he was sexually abused as a child for years by entertainer Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson died on dune 25, 2003. Almost four years after Michael Jackson's death, on May 10, 2013, when plaintiff was 30 years old, plaintit® filed his complaint in this matter. The Complaint sought damages for ‘the abuse from the estate of Michael Jackson, Mad Productions, Tne. and Mog Ventures, Inc. (All three defendants were initially named as Doe defendants pursuant to Code ; of Civil Procedure section 340.1, subdivision (m).) i Plaintiff's claims against defendant estate of Michael Jackson were rejected by the Probate Court on duly 9, 2015 when tha Probate Court denied plaintiff's petition to file a late claim in the MINUTES ENTERED Page lof 17 ° DEPT. WEM 12/18/17 | couwry cre U1 30 | aed wy £260 ZU/6LZ21 soa vora Ja0 40N 999-300 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 12/19/17 DEPT, WEM HONORABLE MITCHELL L,, BECKLOFF supce|| D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK a. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE 1UDGE PRO TEM [ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR, NONE Depuy Stet} NONE, Reporter 8:30 am|BC508502 Paine (Counsel WADE ROBSON NO, APPEARANCES vs. Defendane DOK 1, ET AL Come! RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: probate proceedings; that order is final. Thus, plaintift is foreclosed from proceeding against the probate estate for any injury he may have suffered because of Michael Jackson's actions ‘The remaining defendants are entities owned by Michael Jackson during his lifetime. Defendants in this litigation - Md Productions, Inc. and MJJ Ventures, Inc, - are corporate entities. Michael Jackson was the 100 percent shareholder’ (the "owner") of both, corporate entities, (Defendants! Undisputed Material Facts 6 and 13.) Michael Jackson was also the President of both corporate i entities. (Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC) para. 3 and 4. | According to the FAC, defendant MI Productions, Inc, "was an entertainment company established by MICHABL JACKSON as hie primary business entity and the entity that held most or all of the copyrights to MICHAEL JACKSON's music and videos." (FAC: para. 3.) Defendant MJJ Ventures, Inc. "was_an entertainment company established by MICHAEL JACKSON ! in part for the purpose of employing Plaintiff to work with MICHABL JACKSON on various projects . . i" (FAG para. 4.) Defendant corporations move for summary judgment ion plaintif£'s fourth amended complaint on atatute of imitations grounds. MINUTES ENTERED Page 20f 17 DEPT. WEM 32/19/17 | commry CLERK LL 307 aed L269 LU/BLZ21 oa oyout Jag 40N 370-200, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pate: 12/19/17 DEPT, WEM wONORABLE MITCHELL L, BECKLOFF suncs|| D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK Oo. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE, super reo 12 BLECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Dezuy Set] NONE, Reporte 8:30 am/BC508502 Paint ‘Counsel WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defendant DOE 1, ET AL count RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 is the relevant statute of limitations for this action. As defendants are entities and not individuals, section 340.1, subdivision (a) (2) and (a) (3) are the specific relevant subdivisions, (These subdivisions are the only applicable subdivisions at issue here. Corporations are not direct perpetrators for purposes of section 340.1, subdivision (a) (1). See Boy Scouts v, Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.ath 428, 445.) Actions governed by these subdivisions - that is, sexual abuse actions brought against nonperpetrator entity defendants -- generally must be brolight prior to a plaintiff's 26th birthday. (Code of Civ. Proc. sec. 340.1, subd. (b) (1).) Tere is no dispute plaintif® brought this action well after his 26th birthday, Today plaintiff is 35 Years old) ne was 30 years oid when he filed this Action, Thus, pursuant to the general rule set forth in section 340.1, plaintiff filed his action 4 years too late, and his action is barred by the statute of Limitations. There is, however, @ statutory exception to this general fule that’ an action must be brought prior to gplaintitt/s 26tn bisthday. Plaintice relies on this exception in this litigation. section 340.1, subdivision (b) (2) provides: “rhis (26th birthday cut-off rule] does not apply if the... entity knew or had reason to know, or was Page 30f 17 DEPT. WEN U1 soe a6ed wy 1260 LU/BI/ZL ‘mous MINUTES ENTERED 12/19/17 COUNTY CLERK 0‘pau J0090N * 00-30 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES até: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEM HONORABLE MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF supa] D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK. J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE, {TUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depuy Suit] NONE Reporte 8:30 am)BCS08502 Pint ‘Coane WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defennt DOE 1, ET AL . Counsel RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) ‘NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person, including, but not limited to, preventing or i Avoiding placement of that person in a function or environment in which contact with children is an inherent part of that function or environment. For purposes of this subdivision, providing or requiring Eounseling is not sufficient, in and of iteelf, to constitute a reasonable step or reasonable safeguard." Accordingly, for any of plaintiff's claims to survive summary judgment, there must be at least one qaterial fact in dispute'as to whether plaintiff's action fallg within the "special exception to the i age, 26 cubote." (Quarry v. Boe (2012) 53 Cal.4th 945, 968. "The burden on a defendant moving for summary judgment based upon the assertion of an affirmative defense is [different] than the burden to show {that] one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action cannot be established. Instead... ‘the Gefendant has the initial burden to show that undisputed facts support each element of the affirmative defense’, . . . If the defendant does hot meet this burden, the motion must be denied.* (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 MINUTES ENTERED 12/19/17 Page 40f 17 . DEPT. WEM COUNTY CLERK LL 0 vy o6ea WW L260 LU/8L/E 044 0auJea 404 900-300, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pare: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEM noNoRABLE MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF yopoe| D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK | go. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE: {suDGE #0 TEM) [ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depa Sher] NONE Reporte 8:30 am|BC508502 Pht Counsel WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defend i DoH 1, ET AL ‘Count RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: cal.app.4th 284, 289-290 [citation omitted] .) When there is an exception to an affirmative defense and the complaint alleges facts that trigger the Here, the FAC alleges defendants had control over Michel Jackson. (FAC para. 3 and 4 [corporate Mion@fanu "haa the ability to exercise control over Sotenar JACKSON'S personal and business affairs'] .) Mice. the court finds at the summary judgment stage, sogehaants carzy the initial burden of negating this Géeption to the statute of limitations. The court Siyees mith plaintiff on this point -- defendants’ {Fitial burden on this motion requires them to produce evidence that the exception to the statute pro(imitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 240.3, subd. (b) (2) does not apply. Defendant has’ done so. "[t)ne Legislature's goal in enacting [section 340.1] subdivision (b) (2) (by a 2002 amendment to Zection 340.1] was to expand the ability of victims Setnfidhood abuse to gue those responsible for the {njuries they sustained ac a result of that abuse." iboe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, $28°)" the txception's purpose "is to target ‘third j MINUTES ENTERED page 5 of 17 DEPT. WEM 32/19/17 COUNTY CLERK U4 40.9 o6e4 a 8260 ZI/BI/ZL woud aau} J2a 904 900-300, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pate: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEN, HONORABLE MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF supae|| D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE supe PRo TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depuy Serit|| NONE Report 8:30 am|BC508502 Paint Count WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defendant DOE 1, BT AL Counsel RELATED To BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: the third at p, 543 perpetrator defendant. supra, 42 Cal.4th at S44. perpetrator as perpetrator." {Opposition p. 17. Page 6 of LL 40 9 a6eg wy Bz60 LL/BL/Z party defendants who, by virtue of certain specified Telationships to the perpetrator (i.e., employee, volunteer, representative, or agent), ‘could have emoloyed gafeguarés to prevent the séxual assault. Tt requires the sexual conduct to have arisen through an exploitation of a relationship over which party has sone control. (Citation.]" (Ta. Accordingly, our Supreme Court has recognized that in order to’ fall within the exception of section 340.1, subdivision (b) (2), a nonperpetrator defendant must have some ability to control the (Doe v. City of Los angeles, (The statute's enumeration of the necessary relationship between the nonperpetrator defendant and the perpetrator implies that the former was in a exercise sone control over the latter."]) "third party must be in such a relationship with the ‘to have some control over the (Aaronoff v, Martinez-Senftner (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 910, 921. See also Joseph v. Johnson (2008) i78 Cal.app.dth 1404, 1432 {demurrer properly sustained without leave to amend where failed to allege "the right to control") .) : position to The laintif: Plaintiff argues this control element in the special exception to the age 26 cutoff is "disingenuous." Plaintiff observes the statute “ig silent as to any 'right to control’ language." MINUTES ENTERED 12/19/17 17‘ DEPT. WEM COUNTY CLERK oa oO)ea 3a0 90N #3n0-340, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pate; 12/19/17 DEPT. WEM voNoRasis MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF muves) D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE sUDGR FRO TEM; [BLECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depaty NONE Reporte 4:30 am|BC508502 Pit ‘Count WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Deteodane DOE 1, ET AL Counet RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) [NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: (opposition p. 17.) Nonetheless, section 340.1, subdivision (5) (2) has been so interpreted and this court is bound by those decisions. Moreover, such,a vegquirement is consistent with the general concept that "{t}he absence of an ability to control is fatal to a claim of legal responsibility." (Todd v. Dow (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 253, 259.) 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 defendanta 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. Corporations Code section 303) subdivision (a) specifies (subject to certain conditions not relevant here) "[alny or all of the directors may be removed without cause if the removal is approved by the outstanding shares ..." Moreover, as a matter of law, such action to remove a director (or all directors) ‘by the sole shareholder could occur "without a meeting and without prior notice... ." if that is what MINUTES ENTERED Page 7 of 17 DEPT. WEM 12/19/17 | cobiery crERK UL 30 4 aed Wy 8260 LVBIZCL ‘wold oyut Jaq 30N + 9N0-3€0 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pate: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEM HONORABLE MITCHELL ls, BECKLOFF woe] D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK. J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE TUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR ‘NONE Dep Sturt] NONE Reon 8:30 am|BC508502 Pail ‘Cound WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defendant DOE 1, ET AL Coane! RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) [NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: defendants! sole shareholder - Michael Jackson Ghose to do. (Corp. Code sec. 603, subd. (a).) Moreover, as demonstrated by defendants, Neverland Walley Ranch, where some of the abuse is alleged to have occurred, was owned by Michael Jackson, not either of the corporate defendants, (FAC para. 22.) Similarly, Michael dackson in his individual Gapacity owned the apartments where other abuse is Stleged to have occurred. (FAC para. 25.) The Corporate defendants therefore had no authority over those assets including controlling ingress and egress, who visited Michael Jackson, or procedures to govern Michael Jackson's arrival or departure at the real properties. While doing so in a dictum, Coit Drapery Cleaners, Tne. v, Sequoia ing. Co. (i993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1595 Teoagnizes the futility of a corporation controlling recognizes the tetnajerity shareholder. In colt, the laintiff in an underlying action brought a sexual ‘arassment claim against the president of Coit Drapery Cleaners, inc. The watter was settled and. the parties brought a related action against Coit's {nsurer for failure to defend and indemnity. The Zourt explained that pursuant to the policy terms Gnd state law, the insurer could not be liable for falling to defend and indemnify an intentional act such ag sexual harassment. Further the court found fhat although no claim for negligent supervision was alleged: MINUTES ENTERED Page 8 of 17 DEPT, WEN 12/19/17 | COUNTY CLERK 21 30.9 s60s WH 6200 LIZGI/Z1 wos ‘OLau 00. 90 = 990-900 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pare: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEM wonoaals MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF wuooe] D. SALISBURY DBPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE SUDGE PRO TEM FLECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depry tect] NONE, Reporer 8:30 am|Bcso8so2 Phat Couset H WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defendant DOB.1, BT AL ‘Coonst RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: “the trial court properly found that there was no way Coit, the corporate entity, could have disciplined or supervised its president, chairman of the board, and major shareholder; further, the evidence showed his sexual misconduct with female employees was affirmatively known to, and ratified by, the board of directors and Coit." (Ia. at 1605.) Defendants! evidence is sufficient to carry its initial burden of negating an exception to the statute of limitations affirmative defense. The evidence produced demonstrates the corporate defendants - through its Board and employees - lacked control over Michael Jackson, ‘the defendants had no legal ability to control Michael gackson. Their authority and ability to control Michael Jackson vas undermined by Hichael Jackson's complete and total ownership of the corporate defendants. Without control over Michael Jackson, the corporate defendants could not impose "reasonable safeguards" or take "reasonable steps" to "avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct’ in the future" by Michael Jackson. In responding to defendants! successful shift of the burden on the motion, plaintiff does not raise a material fact in dispute. That is, plaintiff does not produce evidence defendants or any of their employees had any authority or control over Michael Jackson. i MINUTES ENTERED 12/19/17 Page 9 of 17 DEPT, WEM COUNTY CLERK U1 30 6 eds 6260 LU/BL/EL oyau 320 ON 90-900 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pate: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEMt HONORABLE MI'TCHELL L. BECKLOPF supce|| D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE, 1UDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Deputy Soevit]| NONE, Reponee 8:30 am|BCs0as02 Phin Cound WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defendant DOE 1, ET AL Count RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff submits evidence defendant's board members were authorized to take any action, including renoving other officers, agents and employees of the corporations by a majority vote. Plaintifr also shows defendants provided and employed all of Michael Jackson's personal and household staff. Finally,” plaintiff provides come evidence that, even if Michael Jackson a gave different order, employee Norma staikos' orders controlled, and Ms.’ staikos and Bill Bray (defendants' head of security) had funilateral authority to hire and fire defendants’ employees without Michael Jackson's knowledge or approval. ‘This evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a material fact in dispite as to the issue of control. First, plaintiff's evidence three of the board members (Michael Jackson being the fourth) could fire or remove Michael Jackson is illusory authority. As the sole shareholder of both corporate defendante, Michael Jackson alone had the authority to remove any and all of the board members without cause and without notice and reinstate himself as the sole board member. (Corp. Code sec. 303, subd. (a) and 603, subd. (a).) Thus, all of the board members served at the pleasure of Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson's authority under the Corporate Code | is not addressed by plaintiff MINUTES ENTERED Page 10 of 17 © DEPT. WEN 12/19/17 counTy CuBRK 2 30 @1 ed WW 6280 LIVBLZ2L moa 0ut Jag 90N +4010 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pats: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEM HONORABLE MITCHELL L, BECKLOFF supe) D. SALTSBURY DEPUTY CLERK oO. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE supa RO TEN| [ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depuy Sect] NONE. Reporer 8:30 am/BCs0ss02 Paint couse! WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES VS. Pefennt DOE 1, ET AL (Cound RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Further, evidence defendants' employees assisted Michael Jackson with areas of his personal life - such as his home - does not create an evidentiary conflict to defendants! evidence Michael Jackson had ultimate authority over the corporate defendants. Plaintiff has not produced evidence demonstrating the corporate defendants had any control over Michael Jackson's personal or professional life. As a practical matter, everyone involved worked For Michael Jackson, and he held the ultimate control. While high-level employees of defendants may have had authority and control over some lower-level. employees, there is no evidence those high-level employees had authority over Michael Jackson. [As a side note, it appears some of the cited evidence is overstated and does not support the broader contentions contained in plaintiff's Separate statement. For example, plaintiff's additional undisputed material fact 9 - "Defendants! employees were required to follow Staikos! ingtructions; even if Jackson himself gave different orders, Staikos' orders controlled" - is based on i deposition testimony from a uniformed security officer employed by defendant MIT Productions, Inc. The testimony is not as sweeping as plaintiff i claims: "Q: Okay. So even if Michael told you himself to do something, Norma [Staikos], her instructions to you were supposed to trump, correct? ‘A: Yes." (Pinaldi Dec., Exhibit J p. 164:7-10.) Moreover, defendants’ objection to the question as MINUTES ENTERED Page lof 17 DEPT. WEM 12/19/27 | couNTY CLERK LL JO LL aed We 62:60 21/61/21 ‘ous o}ut 3a0 30N 90-300 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DATE: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEM MoNonaBLe MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF suvce|] D. SALISBURY BRUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE. supa PRo TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depaty Stitt} NONE Reporter 8:30 am|BC508502 sit Counsel WADE ROBSON NO APPHARANCES vs. Defend DOE 1, BT AL Couns) RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: leading - preserved during the deposition - ia well taken] in sum, plaintiff's evidence does not raise a material fact in dispute suggesting the corporate defendants had the authority or abitity te se) Genove the perpetrator, Michael Jackson, from the environment involving plaintiff; (2) take reasonable steps to prevent the abuse such a9 aking gure Michael Jackson was never alone with plaintiff; (3) require Michael Jackson to undertake psychological counseling; (4) terminate Michael Jackson's employment; or (5) take any combination of the eeetckes ih (1) ehrough (4. Nithout, the Fight to control Michael Jackson, "the special exception to the age 26 cutoff" contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, subdivision (b) (2) cannot apply- (ginally, the court notes plaintiff's alter ego argument’ supports defendants’ position as the argument necessarily concedes Michael Jackson and the corporate defendants are one in the same. If the i defendant corporations had no existence separate and apart from Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson had to have complete control and authority over the defendant corporations.] Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment. MINUTES ENTERED Page 12 of 17 DEPT. WEM 12/18/17 counry CLARK 2 30 21 aed wh 6D LIVBLZZ1 wold a1au Jog 30N 390-909 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pave: 12/19/17 DEPT. WEM HONORABLE MITCHELL L, BECKLOFF supcel| D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE sUDOE PRO TEM| BLECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Deputy sheit|) NONE apace 8:30 am|BC508502 Pint - Counsel WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defindent Dog 1, BT AL Conese RELATED TO BC63@405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Relying on Aaronoff v. Martinez-Senftner, supra, 136 Cal-App.4th at 921, defendants assert another ground for summary judgment. Section 340.1, subdivision (b) (2) 's exception to the age 26 cutoff requires plaintif£ to demonstrate that he was “expos [ed] to {Michael Jackson] as an inherent part of the environment created by the relationship between [Michael Jackson] and [the defendant corporations] ." (Ibid.) That is, plaintiff must have been exposed to the perpetrator as part of an environment created by the entity, e.g., a student (victim) exposed to a teacher (perpetrator) who works for a school (the entity). (See Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego. v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1567 [sexual abuse occurred off church grounés’in public Places] .) Defendants argue there is no evidence plaintiff was exposed to Michael Jackson as an inherent part of the relationship between Michael Jackson and the corporate defendants. Defendants azgue defendants! Gnvolvement with the alleged abuse is incidental at pest. That is, the abuse would have occurred without regard to the corporate defendants. Degendants rely on evidence plaintiff met Michael Jackson as part of a dance contest sponsored by pepsi, Target and CBS Records in 1987 while. Michael i Jackson was on tour in Australia. Although Michael ‘Jackson was on tour at the time, the corporate defendants did not operate the tours. Further, it MINUTES ENTERED Page 13 of 17 DEPT. WEM 12/19/17 COUNTY CLERK UL Jo el aed — WW 0x60 ZUBLZZI Wo4 olaut Jag 30N 40-200, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pate: 12/19/17 DEPT. NEM HONORABLE MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF sung] _D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE supe PRO TEM| BLECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depug Stet] NONE. Repair 8:30 am|BC508502 Pint counsel WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defeadan: DOE 1, ET AL ‘counsel RELATED TO BC63e405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: was plaintiff's mother who reestablished contact with Michael Jackson through Ms. Staikos at Mad Productions, Inc. when plaintiff's mother and plaintiff came to the United States. Plaintiff's Tother also requested Michael Jackson sponsor plaintifé's family's request to immigrate to the United States, Michael Jackson did so through MIT Ventures, Inc. Hee 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 ase from those where the sexual abuse suffered was directly related to the inherent relationship i betwaen the perpetrator and the entity such as teacher/school, scout master/scouting organization, priest/church or coach/youth sporte organization. Through these facts, defendants met their initial fpurden of production and shifted the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate a material fact in dispute Es to whether plaintiff was exposed to Michael Sackeon as an inherent part of the environment created by Michael Jackson and the defendant | corporations. Plaintif£'s opposition does not directly address the exception's requirement plaintiff be exposed to the perpetrator as an inherent part of the relationship MINUTES ENTERED Page 14 of 17 DEPT. WEN 12/19/17 counry CLERK LL vi aes We 1860 LUZBL/ZL moa olon 300-400 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pars: 12/18/27 DEPT. WEM HONORABLE MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF suvoel| D, SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE rpc 20 Te ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Deputy Sect} NONE Reporter 8:30 am|BCS08502 Paint Counsel WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defendant DOB 1, BT AL Comet RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: between the perpetrator and the defendant entity. Instead, plaintiff focuses on duty and whether a. Inonperpetrator entity owed a duty to the plaintiff, For legal support for his position on duty, plaintiff turns to the recent cage Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Ass'n, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App,Sth 1118, 1129, where the court found that [a] special relationship exists when 'the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable snd dependent upon the efendant who, correspondingly, has some control over the plaintiff's welfare. '# The question of duty, however, does not address the i issue of whether plaintiff was exposed to Michael Jackson ag an inherent party of the relationship between Michael Jackson and the corporate. defendants. ‘The existence of a duty ie not directly relevant t6 the court's analysis of whether plaintiff's claims are timely under the special exception to the age 26 cutoff. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to demonstrate a material fact in dispute as to the issue of whether i plaintiff was exposed to Michael Jackson as part of the inherent relationship between Michael Jackson’ and the defendants. Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on this separate ground as well. Based on the foregoing, the motion for summary judgment is granted. MINUTES ENTERED 2/19/17 Page 15 of 17 DEPT. WEM L | COUNTY CLERK | Li JO Si o6ed WW IE%00 21/61/21 ‘woug OLuy 380 0N 390-900 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pare 12/19/17 DEPT. WEN, HoNoRaBLe MITCHELL L, BECKLOFF supos] D. SALISBURY DEPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM| [ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depry uenit|| NONE Reponer BC508502 Phi (Count WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defendast, DOE 1, ET AL Count RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: The court notes defendants have a motion to seal pending for hearing on January 12, 2018 as to certain exhibits submitted by plaintifé in connection with plaintiff's opposition to the motion. As to four of those exhibits ~ R, KK, LL and MM — the court sustained objections. Thus, those four exhibits were not considered in resolving this motion. As to the remaining exhibits - NN, O and PP - defendants indicated at the hearing on this motion that even if the court dia not order the documents sealed on January 12, 2018, they would not be asking for return of the lodged documents and would consent, to the documents being filed unsealed. (See Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 2.551.) Defendants shall submit an order and a judgment. The clerk shall give notice by first-clasa mail and facsimile transmission. CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, the below-named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not a party to the cause herein, and that on this date I served the ruling on submitted matter upon each party or counsel named below by placing the document for collection and mailing so as to MINUTES ENTERED Page 16 of 17 DEPT. WEM 12/19/17 COUNTY CLERK LL $0 91 ed WW Le60 ZUVBI/ZL oly 9aga yoy #4n0-4¢0 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES pate: 12/19/17 DEPT, WEM ZONORASLE MITCHELL L, BECKLOFF vopge| D. SALISBURY DSPUTY CLERK J. MORGAN, C/A 4ONORABLE. 2UDGE PRO TEM [ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depuy Shit] NONE, Reporte 8:30 am)BC508502 Phot couse WADE ROBSON NO APPEARANCES vs. Defendant DO 1, ET AL Ccounset RELATED TO BC638405 (NOT LEAD) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: cause it to be deposited in the United States mail at the courthouse in Santa Monica, Galigornia, one copy of the original filed/entered herein in A separate sealed envelope to each address as shown below with the postage thereon fully prepaid, i ih accordance with standard court practices. Dated: December 19, 2017 Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk By: D. Salisbury vince W. Finaldi, Esq. Manly, Stewart &' Pinaldi 39100'von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 FAX: 949-252-9992 Jonathan P. Steinsapir, Esq. | Kinsella Weitzman et al. F 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300If Santa Monica, CA 90401 FAX: 310-566-9850 MINUTES ENTERED Page 17 of 17 DEPT. WEM 32/19/17 Commrr cuERX LL JO LI ocd Isi60 LU/8I721 muy ol