1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Electronically FILEDbySuperiorCourtofCalifornia,CountyLosAngeleson10/02/202008:33AMSherriR.Carter,ExecutiveOfficer/ClerkCourt,L.Kulkin,DeputyClerk

inclusive California corporation; and corporation MJJ PRODUCTIONS JAMES SAFECHUCK, an individual, A Fax: (949) 252 Telephone: (949) 252 Irvine, CA92612 800 19100 VonKarman Suite Ave., MANLY ALEX VINCEFINALDI, (State W.Bar No. Esq. 238279) (StateJOHN Bar C.MANLY, No. Esq. 149080) tto rneys for Plaintiff, NOTICE NOTICE E. vs. , ,

CUNNY, E

STEWART ; MJJ VE ; MJJ IN AND FOR THE OF PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF OF - Defendants. Plaintiff, 9991

SUPERIOR COURTSUPERIOR

NTURES - s , 9990 q. (State Bar No.q. 291567)

JAMES SAFECHUCK JAMES INC., & FINALDI

DOES

a California ,

INC. COUNTY OF 6

AMENDE SAFECHU 50

, OF THE STATE OF OF THE D COMPLAINT D CK ,

an LOS ANGELES LOS i

v. MJJ Productions, et andprobate al., [Relatedcivil Wade case, BC508502, to Case BC545264 No.: Trial Date: Set None Filed:Complaint May9,2014 Location: Hearing Time Hearing Date: AUTHORITIES MEMORANDUM AMENDED COMPLAINT; OPPOSITION TODEMURRER SAFECHUC PLAINTI OF NOTICE Mark A. Young, De [Both case Jackson] BP117321, Inre Estate ’ Reserved bytheCourtonJune25,2020

S OPPOSITION TO D TO S OPPOSITION individual

assigned to the assigned tothe K : CALIFORNIA ’S -

WEST DISTRICT OPPOS pt. OF EMURRER TO EMURRER

M 8:30 a.m. 8:30 October 16,2020 M] M] o

POINTS FF f Michael Joseph ITION AND ITION Honor JAMES

able Judge able Judge AND THIRD

c THIRD Robson ase

mandate “ ( Op of Declaration the Authorities, and Points

“ Opposition V oiin o eedns MJJ Defendants to position entures NOTICE NOTICE hs poiin s rudd n hs Noti this in grounded is Opposition This 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. NOTICE TAKE PLEASE COURT, ALL THE TO PARTI

that

” concealment repeated J and Defendants ple properly of Breach The s an causation breach, N Action The damages, theDemurrer thus, tothis ple sufficiently The damages, thus been The damages, theDemurrer thus, tothis pl sufficiently The and Plaintiff, distress the at directed intentional, was constitu Jackson, by Plaintiff, the repeated the facilitating in conduct, Defendants N Action of (Cause The Defe t California of against State the of laws the Jackso over care of duty a Plaintiff the owing to addition In Jackson ( supervise protect, d to foreseeable care of duty Calif under such as These ) ” hould beoverruled

) the OF PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF OF Th . (collectively, (collectively, N ndants N N Inten N sufficiently ple sufficiently Demurrer beDemurrer overrule

egligent Ret egligent egligen eglige Defendants egligence egligence ; is

Jac

umber “ oettos ht e ufrd t h hns f ako ad Defendants and Jackson of hands the at suffered he that molestations inl nlcin f mtoa Di Emotional of Infliction tional Jackson Opposition ’ sn eptaig euly bsv a abusive sexually perpetrating kson , hog Defendants through n,

nt Failure to Warn, Train or Educate Educate or Train Warn, to Failure nt care, custody andcare, control; d and of facilitation such abuse. Supervision t nes ht they that angers , as the the as , , theDemurrer tothis e Fiduciary d d 5

) has been been has ) “

c ih liae at, hwn dt, rah causati breach, duty, showing facts, ultimate with breac duty, showing facts, ultimate with ” ention Defendants stood in a in stood csn (Defendants ackson ue of ause ), ornia law ornia ; and umber d d damages, thus, the Demurrer to this this to Demurrer the thus, damages, d an agentan ofDefendants

Productions with ultimate facts, ultimate with is Plaintiff

c AMENDE SAFECHU that rudd n the in grounded Duty ause of of ause 1 d,

sufficiently ple sufficiently ) has been been has ) c ac

ue of ause special relat special owed in toto ES AND ES ” Plaintiff James S James Plaintiff in Cue f cin N Action of (Cause tion ) c A

ause of ause kn D lex E. Cunny E. lex a i a ofdnil fiduciary confidential, a in was te , a D COMPLAINT D

’ mre t the to emurrer CK s ction (Cause of Action N Action of (Cause ction w or ew

him Inc c c c :

man ii

“ ause of ause of ause of ause tan educa train, ,

a outrageous

’ hat further further hat e te tahd oin n Mmrnu of Memorandum and Motion attached the ce, N Action of (Cause ction S OPPOSITION TO D TO S OPPOSITION . sufficiently ple sufficiently ’ THEIR OFRECORD: ATTORNEYS — ’

s a aging agents, agents, aging

ionship with the with ionship ction ( ction agent),

a showing duty, breach, causation and causation breach, duty, showing (

d should “ following minor employee of Defendants of employee minor ,

Productions a a a

with ultimate facts, showing duty, duty, showing facts, ultimate with stress that was knownt ction should bection should overruled bection should overruled bection should overruled , the entirety of the files and records in in records and files the of entirety the , , Defendants , afe Cause caused

”

hlho sexual childhood

hc ws rahd throu breached was which ofre a conferred ch and

ae known have e ad an gis the against warn and te, c ( hr Aedd Complaint Amended Third cts uck ( uck “ ue of ause

IIED

d legal “ of n wr mnae by mandated were and

extreme” him him ” with ultimate facts, ultimate with upon the the upon ) umber 2) has been been has 2) umber Action “ minor minor EMURRER TO EMURRER ” Plaintiff

n MJJ and maintained ) umber n fcul bas factual and

, asto and causation h, eee emotion severe a o c c ction (Cause of of (Cause ction uy o protect to duty ause ue of ause

exert

umber ht Mi that Number 5) has bee has 5) Number Plaintiff, and Plaintiff, con 4 ”

sals of assaults ios in minors ) has been been has ) ) relati ; of duct etrs Inc Ventures,

files the instant the files ; ; ; n and on

control 3 a a ch has ) that , nhp with onship ction ction THIRD — ael as as s which es al a

( the the the . ’ n s ’

MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 D the Motion. docume evidence, or argument any upon and case, this ate : October October 2, 2020 : NOTICE NOTICE OF PLAINTIFFOF JAMES AMENDE SAFECHU y ______By: ALEXattorneys CUNNY, Safechuck for Esq. James ______MANLY, & FINALDI STEWART ALEXattorneys CUNNY, Safechuck for Esq. James MANLY, & FINALDI STEWART D COMPLAINT D CK iii ’ S OPPOSITION TO D TO S OPPOSITION ntary, oral or other, raised at the hearing of hearing the at raised other, or oral ntary, EMURRER TO EMURRER THIRD MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

III. II. I.

CO J. I. H. G. F. E. D. C. B. A. ARGUMENTLEGAL E. D. C. B. A. INTRODUCTION

NCLUSION ALTER IN THE DUTY P LIAB T FAILURE WARN,NEGLIGENT TO TRAIN OREDUCATE PL THE SUPERVIS T T 2. 1. ADUTYCREATE C ALL F DUTIES JACKSON CONFERRED AUTHORITY DEFENDANTS F DEFENDANTS WHICH O ABUSE SEXUAL THE CONTROL PAR THE LAINTIFF HAS HAS LAINTIFF ALLEGATIONS ACTUAL HE PLA HE PLAI HE PLAINTIFFHASHE CODE IVIL

INFERENCES RESOVLED INFERENCES ILIT . Show Separate Duty Defendants Show Separate Duty Defendants

......

...... AINTIFF HAS

...... ALL INTIFF HASINTIFF TIES Y . ION

...... AND FACTUALAND BACKGROUND

ing ing IS PLEIS ...... EGED

NTIFF HAS HAS NTIFF ETO 11 AN 1714 SECTION

’ ...... Control Control AND

NATIVE, PL ...... K ’ ’ NOWLEDGE

. T “ “

...... D Inability to Control Inability Inability to Control Inability A A TABLE OF CONT OF TABLE AND CAUSATION PLAIN i i

VICARIOUSLY, THROUGH BLE OFCONTENTSBLE t Has t Has EUTL PLE DEQUATELY . . ADEQUATELY PLE ADEQUATELY PLE ADEQUATELY A

...... DEQUATELY ...... F THE PLA THE F ACILITATED ACILITATED ...... t t TIFF TIFF o o AINTIFF REQUESTS LEA AINTIFF REQUESTS ...... ARE iv Protect Protect ......

N DEFENDANTS ON DQAEY PLE ADEQUATELY OF IN ...... UNDER THE DEFENDANTSUNDER THE

......

D ACCEPTED BE TO ENTS JACKS FA t t ...... he Plai he Plai INTIFF AND PROCESS THROUGH PROCESS AND INTIFF THE ” ”

VOR OF THE PL VOR OFTHE . PLE

...... Jackson Argument Ignores Argument Jackson Jackson Argument Ignores Argument Jackson

IT ...... D

......

...... ON

...... D D D ntiff ntiff “ ......

SPEC

...... BREAC IIED NEGLIG NEGLIGENCE ’ ...... S , , ...... b b SEXUAL AB SEXUAL ut ut . RATIFICATION A RELATI IAL ......

...... ’ a a

O FIDUCIARY OF H lso, Ignores lso, Ignores ENT ENT ...... EMPLOYEES VE TO AMEVE TO D AI S TRUE AS

...... N

...... IS PROPER IS HIRING TIFF...... NEGLIGENT ......

USE ...... ’

...... ONSHIP ...... t t ......

he F he F ...... t t

..... he he . WITH

ND ......

. .

acts acts acts 15 15 15 14 14 13 12 12 11 10 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 BY .

”

White v. Inc. Ultramar, Taraso Regents Uni of Matteson v. Wagone v.Californi Lugtu v.Kahn EastSide UnionHighScho v.C.A. S.Hart High William Union Bl Bigbee v. P Aubry CASES Penal Code Penal Code Penal Cod Evidence Code ProcedureCode ofCivil ProcedureCode ofCivil ProcedureCode ofCivil C Code Civil STATUTES A

ngie M v. Superior Court ivil Code ank v. Kirwan

v. Tri ff v.ff 37 Cal.App.4th 1217 563 21 Cal.4th 17 Cal. 607 4 Cal.5th 147 Cal. 739 703 26 Cal.4th 990 31 Cal.4th 5 3 34 Cal. 962 2 Cal.4th

3 Cal.4th 861 3 Cal.4th 9 Cal.3d e

§ § ac. Tel. & Tel. Co. Tel. & ac. Regents of

- § §11166 § 1714 2330 City Hosp.Dist. City

11166.5 11165.7 3d 49 3d 425 v. of California v. Supe v. ofCalifornia

§669

(1985)

311 a Highway Patrol ......

......

...... (1905

University ofCalifornia ......

(1999) (1999)

§ § §340.1(b 589 422.10 , ( )

1995) ......

(1992)

(1983) ......

...... TABLE OFAU TABLE )

......

ol Dist.

TABLE OF OF TABLE School (2001)

rior Court Court rior ......

(2003) (2003) Dist.

AUTHORIT (1976) 5 ...... (2018) (2012)

THORITIES ......

......

...... IES ......

......

6, 9 ...... 4,

6 ... - - 10, 10, 13 7,

10 10 11 4 4 15 5 11

14 11 13 4 6 6 4 6 4

Juarez v. Bo Hegyesv. Ent Unijian Hart v. Na Federico Court v. Superior Evan F Eric J. SoccerDoe v. UnitedStatesYouth Doe v. S Daniels v. v. WatchtConti Cole DraperyCoit Sequo Cleaners v. C.R Brocke Bar Barbara A K.

G. v enborg .

v. Tenet Health v. Dist. FairOaks FireProtection . S.B. tt v. Kitchen Boyd Mot v.tt Kitchen Boyd . v. Hughson United Methodist. v. Church HughsonUnited v.M. Betty 46 Cal.App.5 81 Cal.App 234 Cal.App.3d 1 189 Ca 59 C 8 Cal.App.4th 828 76 Cal.Ap 8 Cal.App.5th 1118 237 Cal.App.4th 246 Cal.App.4th 1150 235 Cal.App.4 43 Cal.3d 148 14 Cal.App.4th 1595 169 Cal. App. 264 Cal.App.2d 69 33 C 145 Cal.App. uperior Court t'l Mort . v. John G Select Servicing, Inc Portfolio v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Frater Epsilon v. SigmaAlpha

al.App.4 al.App.5 (2020) y Sc y l.App.3d 1420 ower Bibl outs of p

gage & Land Co. gage &Land (1999) (1999) .4th 377 .4

care Corp. Corp. care th th th th 3d 369 . 4th 1094

...... ers, Inc. , (1983) , (1983) th

(2015)

625 1207 715 70 America, Inc.

239 1214 10 e &T

......

...... 3 (1997) ......

......

...... or Co.

......

...... (1 rade York,Inc. Society ofNew (2009) ia Ins. Co. ia Ins.Co. 991) TABLE OFAUTHORITIES TABLE

Assn., Inc.

TABLE OF OF TABLE (1987) (1968)

(2000)

(1987) (CONTINUED) . (2016) ...... nit (1993)

(2017) ...... (2019)

(1992) (1992) ...... AUTHORIT

...... 6 ......

......

IES

...... (2015)

......

...... 1 ...... - ...... 2, 8,12 .... 6

12 5, - 7,13

7 8 6,13 12 8 6 6 14 11 14 7 9 15 - 13 - 13 7

Wise v. Supe Trerice v. California Blue of Cross v.Todd Dow, Santil Scott v. Chevron U.S.A. Bishop ofSanDiegov.Roman Catholic Perkins v.Superior Co P M Mendoza v. ofLo City Mel Megeff v. Doland L L

andis v.andis Superior Court aabs v. Sout amel urillo v.Rite urillo ton v.B lan v.Roman Catholic Fresno Bishopof a L. v.a L. Farmer 222 Cal.App.3d 10 209 Cal. App.3d8 19 Cal.A 163 Cal.App.4th 5 Cal.App.4th 510 42 Cal.App.4th 1556 117 C 112 65 Cal.App.4th 833 66 183 Cal.App.4 12 232 Cal.App.2d 175 C 3 Cal.App.3d Cal.App.4th 133

oustred Cal.App. ri

al.App.3d 1 al.App.4t hern Co. California Edison (1993) or Court

Stuff Foods,Stuff Inc. pp.4 (1981) (1981)

(2010) (2010)

th 3d 206

(1980) s Angeles th h 1260 urt

253

(1990) (1990) 2 548

(1992) (1992) 4 521

(1965) ......

...... (1981) 08 78

3 ......

......

(1998)

(1998) TABLE OFAUTHORITIES TABLE

, (1989) TABLE OF OF TABLE

Superior Court Superior (CONTINUED)

(2009)

...... (2008) AUTHORIT ...... 7 ......

......

( 1996)

IES

......

- 7 14 8 5 11 4 7 15 fn.2 9 9 15 5 12 - - 8 8

Defendants, o set the on ( A. con concern bound p parents phone couldaAnyone withaccess to argu can Defendants where business of place con of alon be could alo be could by Plaintiff Defendants of cu their into children minor took meetings wardrobe.

“ hysically prevent hysically TAC

: sexual the

sideration upondemurrer duct hiring ment that ment PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF

s of the law, and in compliance with t with compliance in and law, the of s sexual abuse sexual ” , Plaintiff PAR THE I Productions, MJJ Defendants )

r that placed children these home inhis to

rah n causation and breach efused to pla to efused ¶10 between abuse by abuse ” children,

foreseeable abuse abuse foreseeable Id. being co being ne with them, with ne knew

a t a f e to e Exhibit Exhibit

th , ’ t ¶11 at I. t ere was n was ere born in 1978 in born

groom

es ed TIES Plaintiff v ako had Jackson the man the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORPOINTS MEMORANDUM OF ae the cape occur transporting transporting

shoot mpensated th mpensated Jackson f Jackson “ . ce Jackson in situations where he was he where situations in Jackson ce 1 Jo INTRODUCTION

” /

AND these minors worked with him with worked minors these SAFECHU mo

red to lie . othing othing and Jackson distracting the families, and families, the distracting who owned who lest them. lest Id. . Final

Levine rtcie duties protective at Jackson at and T ,

PLAIN rom abusing them. them. abusing rom

he began w began , t ¶10. at stody alle them hc are which

d they create demurrer rou CK i D , gedly cal gh gh ’ Ja eclar / TIFF TIFF While Defendants make m makeDefendants While S OPPOS control, n could to Jackson to .

orking in telev in orking d ’ ckson c. worked for for worked l TAC Plaintiff “ s

the police. They could have warned thechildren could warned They have the police. the

tra COMPLAINT residence ( ation

euly abused sexually “ should heir duties owed to these kids. these to owed duties heir AND FACTUALAND BACKGROUND UNDER THE DEFENDANTSUNDER THE vel, lodging vel, Pr

eevd o a factfinder a for reserved , ¶ have done have very circumstan very ’ , and importantly, , and

s oduction ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION knowingly expos knowingly they they 13. 1

( assistant

“ , T became

Finaldi Decl. Finaldi

isolating the isolating be overruled hese actions would have been we been have would actions hese the companies the , owed owed

they ision ision

, s

, ” t fa including / o protect a protect o ad J Ven MJJ and ) Defendants food ignore the allegations allegations the ignore cilitating cilitating an to

in with t with children, ces the , netimn talent entertainment ‘

” m .

medical care, and care, medical 84/

that Jack ing )

uch ado about ado uch that allowed the allowed that

kids In late In – from

hese children unsuper children hese ’ rehearsing

Michael 85. them to a to them travel gainst gainst ’

ITIES aaig agent managing in

yet yet 3 th n nt appropriate not and rd son THIRD A THIRD ‘ ue, Inc tures, their / eir families so Jackson Jackson so families eir 86/ hotel stays hotel

Yet, th Amended Complaint Amended otne t expose to continued Jackson ’ ’ is abuse is abuse is ’ s

n unreasonable risk unreasonable n CONTROL 87,

home for performancesfor care the these a these

that he MENDE clothing and/or and/or clothing abuse to abuse

( . fact that fact .

mlye of employee met ( was also his also was ll within the within ll Defendants “ it w it “ so Jackson so Ventures Jackson ctions ,

arranged vised

not true. true. not Jackson Jackson

as D o . occur r some their their their st , or , for for ” ill ” ) ’ ) , . . ,

abuse continued until until continued abuse De Plaintiff the sexual the shopping entertainment, Id. tour. the during the on B. Defe t and [Jackson] supervising children. minor of Id. sophisticated a by entertainment others. and f children other and meetings arrange and facilitate Jackson over and herein, relevant times entit /// Defendants,

buse

fendants at [Emphasis Added]. [Emphasis ies ndants ndants Jackson

PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF ¶5. victims. . Bad Jackson sexual Jackson O F DEFENDANTS WHICH ABUSE SEXUAL THE Defendant

TAC utilized

Defendants

abuse of t of abuse ”

as were acting as acting were

Tour, ’ I ’

tae, lodgin travel, s child sexu child ,¶ d. s at ” a business ¶

or n TAC at ¶3. at TAC 3

Def entertainer, teacher, Neverland - s Jackson, Jackson, the purpose of [Jackson] of purpose the 4 where , ” .

Cali he Plaintiff began, Plaintiff he Id. e , ¶5. ¶5. , Jackson was the president the was Jackson , ¶2 , “

nd 1992 ly abused Plaintiff from Plaintiff abused ly Defendants were entities create entities were

al abuse procurement and and procurement abuse al Jackson and Productions paid Productions and Jackson personaland ant fornia t ¶114 at SAFECHU sprees 9. On the On 9. Productions Defendants that in that in that . “ he minors in his charge, including the P the including charge, his in minors he s n to and

, procurers Id. with , arneet, n appeara and arrangements, g at

hotel and , at corpo

Plaintiff Defendants ¶ served dual served CK (2) (2) Tour ¶31, Defendants ACILITATED ACILITATED

encounters

affa ” coach ration ’ “ and PLA THE F S OPPOS

capacity “ designed, developed and developed designed, of child sexual abuse victims f victims abuse sexual child of 33 , Jackson and Producti and Jackson desi irs. Plaintiff COMPLAINT d to, at least in part, provide fo provide part, in least at to, d ,36,38 ’ accommo Levin ’ home s , s s engaging in engaging s gn ” , and

- I w “ purposes: (1) purposes: [ ’ d. ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION , J / … 2 employed individuals who were responsible for for responsible were who individuals employed

e une une o . e, made e, [Productions] had the abi the had [Productions]

mentor knowledge

between re at ¶3. at wner The facilitation ] “

perfo

oae attract, locate, IT dat salse a Jackson as established until until

and NIF N POES THROUGH PROCESS AND INTIFF abuse abuse

(and made) al made) (and . and io

The same was was same The to r

ns “ med nightly with [Jackson] on [Jackson] with nightly med 1992 childhoo [Jack all the arrangements the all minors minors t Jac at . to , an

nces nces creating occur

Id. organization the world the organization ons . age o] a son]

access TAC at operated ’

kson red at red wi

nt of nt such as Plaintiff manag d sexu d ¶ ue n sdc cid sexua child seduce and lure la

th l travel arrangements, travel l 29. i and distributin and , ¶ , nd the the nd nt or Jackson. Jackson. or true for true ’ s Plaintiff iff. ¶31, De [ h Jackson During the During THIRD A THIRD ing agents ing

r the welfare and safety and welfare the r al otel roo otel what is likely the likely is what lity to exercise control control exercise to lity other ” fendants

abuse of the Plaintiff the of abuse 36. ’ Id. s io Panif a Plaintiff minor Ventures. ”

rmr business primary and , Defendants hired hired Defendants The The

] f homes arranged ms … MENDE Id. or the Plaintiff the or .

. TAC g multimedia g ” “ has known. has

Tour abuse Id.

coordina

“ The se The Id. o se to

. Id. “ , ¶8.

D , [A]t all all [A]t stage

Id. t 31. at where where

began began

at ¶4. at food, up, t most most

xual xual

te by by nd at . d ” ” l

children. enforcing p requiring (1) custody. Jackson we ent children “ Demurrer D. Levin ¶46. h his put Jackson i manager forced TAC were and arran was Jackson towards C. Jackso ¶ E. of and were caredwhile for, they

ncluding rmr responsibility primary ¶ 35,42,

l fare, safety and/or care of the minors who were entrusted to Defendants. to entrusted were who minors the of care and/or safety fare, , ¶¶4 , There PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF eaware was Jackson Plaintiffwas in sleeping gements n Jacks DUTIES DUTIES Defendants CONFERREDAUTHORITY to Prior DEFENDANTS ’ 45, , ceded s mino I

, d. 8 warn finding Jackson finding P Executive rules 18:22

- 56 rod

49. 49. was was rusted Levine and Levine n o agree to on C sleeping with with sleeping r ,112 . , ¶116(d). ¶116(d). , s u authority ed arents to be present be to arents

. TAC S ctio Plaintiff eurn ohr t rpr Jack report to others requiring . “ Defendants

ALL

ta and Both gossip by S by .

ikos Moreover, often, Plaintiff often, Moreover, ignor ns to ¶ , D

down th down

EGED irector

taikos that taikos empl Defenda ¶ Levine and Staikos and Levine ”

had the ability to exert control over Jackson and Defend and Jackson over control exert to ability the had ’ ’

Staikos had Staikos ” 29, to to

Levine and Levine SAFECHU e

s to fire an employee who who employee an fire to

K ’ f rvdn fr the for providing of

s and Plaintiff and s t Nev at abuse h allegat the Plaintiff Staikos and Staikos NOWLEDGE 35 oyee ’ /

employe AND CAUSATION e front of the of front e . emplo

nts In ,

in contact [Jackso with rad ht ako was Jackson that erland Mariano Quindoy, had witnessed witnessed had Quindoy, Mariano

Def Jacks , CK 1989 in with Jac with

espec ye Staikos the ions enda ’ e of his S OPPOS es, on was not was on Le ON DEFENDANTS , power ’ Defend

s underwear s ially hotel room hotel COMPLAINT vine to supervise the minor children in children minor the supervise to vine including

nts were nts Pro

showing OF were employees of employees were

Plaintiff kson assured that assured ’ ductions

s transpo s

ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION JACKS since to stop Jackson stop to 3 son “ ants

, (2) reporting (2) , aey wlae ad well and welfare, safety, . ’ ,

euse a raise a requested s bed

on notic on o con ’ Levine ’

, alone , an

s sho s

Jackson be a be lyin tf wr epoe a Nvrad Ranch, Neverland at employed were staff /

Ventures, ON rt ( d trol, n ation w ation . “ ]. Id. g their children would be safe be would children their 4) r lone with the with lone ” ’ ts while ts

, e , “ S

next to Jackson to next amngn ag managing (a e that e Id. aig an having ’

r discount or at ¶116(g). limiting

SEXUAL AB SEXUAL s EMPLOYEES pecially pecially Productions “

from abusing children, including children, abusing from at t as Jackson to law enforcement law to Jackson ook Norma

¶116 Jackson was was Jackson arrange they

Jackson .

o cin t poie the provide to actions no Jacks TAC (e) since since affair

child of a staff member staff a of child Staikos. Staikos. were in were THIRD A THIRD them .

d to these locations by locations these to d / ¶49. , Ven ’ on - USE ent s bed s being ’ she ” abus s ”

’

s ) as with Id. tures,

sexually .

were were access the making was

Id.

a jacuzzi. a the D the

” MENDE

T ants; once, she she once, ants; “ JACKSON wit and at ¶116(b at

te fantas utter h v behavio ive

f l minor all of at 47 Plaintiff e and aware that that aware efe Neverla taken care taken

to minor minor to - D abusive nessing nessing had the the had ndants 49. TAC ),(c). , (3) , .

. Id. nd

y r, r, ” ’ : , .

739, 742 739, shown.. action of cause the to irrelevant facts other of g held plain the that appears Bl regardle therein, action of causes the of sufficiency doesn demurrer of sufficiency standard A. to ac reporters D make of abuse the pursuant ch suspected of reports mandated “ the supervision adequate negligen the as long theory.” possible any under action

harmful efendant tual and proxim and tual ank v. Kirwan v. ank

suffer efre ue o te De the of rules enforce y Child Abuse Reporting and Neglect Act ( Act Neglect and Reporting Abuse Child PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF ood, altho ood, eot to reports C RESOVLED INFERENCES F D

from from ACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ALLEGATIONS ACTUAL alifornia ef to children. children. n fie t d so do to failed and s “ ekn v Spro Co Superior v. Perkins had s ituations endants It Penal is error for a trial court to sust to court trial a for error is anxiety, anger depression, allegations allegations

ugh the facts may no may facts the ugh ’

a enforcemen law t duty a

(1985) 3 (1985) at pleading r pleading Cod

owed Plaintiff duties Plaintiff owed et h tuhuns o a complaint a of truthfulness the test TAC e cause e o ti tann, war training, , ce claim states a cause of action under some theory of negligence, the the negligence, of theory some under action of cause a states claim ce r

ff is entitled to a to entitled is ff e al o hl we a iuto i byn ter control their beyond is situation a when help for call

¶ , § SAFECHU o nom hi emp their inform to

9 Cal.3d 9 1116 n complaint a in ¶131 s

equirements of . fendants 6, 11167 6, TAC Plaintiff - 136. Despite Despite 136. II. t. urt CK

Id 311, 318. 311, Aubry ild ig and ning ¶131 ,

t be clearly stated, or may be be may or stated, clearly be t . ’

IN 18) 1 C 117 (1981)

S OPPOS , ny reli ny nta, Defe Instead, abuse, and more specifically, childhood sexual abuse, abuse, sexual childhood specifically, more and abuse, ’ , , fear, humiliation, , ARE . (3) LEGAL ARGUMENTLEGAL

s damages. damages. s including are liberal and app and liberal are FA TAC

COMPLAINT v. Tri v. ra and ,139.

ain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of of cause a stated has plaintiff the when demurrer a ain oio mnr ch minor monitor VOR OF THE PL VOR OFTHE “

ef education “[I]f upon “[I]f CANRA , ¶119. , O E ACCEPTED BE TO loy employe ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION 4 [

… Defen City Hosp. Dist. Hosp. City ises e o the of ees to ] ss of how impro how of ss TAC ndants lAp3 1 6 1, al.App.3d against the defendants, the complaint the defendants, the against

usin o law. of questions Def (1) protect minors in their caretheir provide andin minors protect(1) ”

dan es , .” )

(2) a consideration of all the facts stated it it stated facts the all of consideration a

¶¶ , and endants were mandated reporters mandated were endants – bevn abuse observing Matteson v. Wagone v. Matteson

ts ’ and shame. trut

’ roximate the federal the roximate ir ocae abuse concealed 117 o uevs epoes and employees supervise to

w breach lrn n pre and ildren hf ea responsibili legal ere required to reported suspected suspected reported to required ere AI

- les s assumed is ulness 118

(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966. 962, Cal.4th 2 (1992) N intermingled . TIFF. es bable the bable . A demurrer demurrer A T Id.

S TRUE AS f these of he he C.C.P. THIRD A THIRD

at ¶117. Defendants ,

abuse c abuse . v … n ado cor and/or ent TAC r

facts may appear. may facts

§§422.10 with a s a with ” (1905 ty duties notice pleading notice ad (4) and , MENDE

tests the legal legal the tests aused Plaintiff aused IH ALL WITH ¶ , as o et the test to

¶ ) 147 Cal. 147 )

mandated 68, were the the were ald to failed tatement tatement , D

589 will be will ensure ensure 74 under make make - rect rect

. 75. So A

“ ‘ Laabs on bearing limi 510 Cal.App.4th may liability at conduct negligent ev to rather but conduct, defendant's particular “ Sout variet the the conte “ they and powerful abuse. Plaintiff Jackson their confuse Defendants b action. demu

category o category appropr is r with Foreseeability y ar y

not to decide whether a particular plaintif particular a whether decide to not B. ted hern California Edison Co. Edison California hern

guing rrer must be overruled. overruled. be must rrer PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF

co , Despite thes Despite Daniels v. 1. Defendants DEFENDA 175 Cal.App 175 . n fr h cut ad edl cnrse wt te fact the with contrasted readily and court, the for one , nduct

ia xt of det xt of

y of rol of y Moreover, Defendants owed owed Defendants tely be imposed on thenegligentely be imposed ARGUMENTS neglige f negligent conduct negligent f they owed owed they

appropriately be imposed on the negl the on imposed be appropriately

C that exposed exposed that ivil Code es . ermining negligence ( ermining Select Portfolio Servicing,Portfolio Inc Select “ nce (breach of duty) and proximate and duty) of (breach nce NTS NTS played by the concept of foreseeaof concept the by played seek to escape all liability for liability all escape to seek iwd n thi in Viewed uis Defendan duties, e .4t n ih of light in

uy with duty su i sufficien is issue espec p no duty no h wres t owerless,

SAFECHU at

Section 1714an WD DT T PLAINTIFF TO DUTY A OWED

t to the to t 12 CONFLATE a Plaintiff 73

A demurrer cannot piecemeal dismiss dismiss piecemeal cannot demurrer A uy o ae fimtv action affirmative take to duty ’ whatsoever

breach the

is s is . (2009) 175 C 175 (2009)

lgt the light, s “ CK

his a uff spec he scope he nalysis of d of nalysis ’ S OPPOS / o n nesnbe risk unreasonable an to s ditdy did admittedly ts iciently likely iciently i.e. tly causation, causation, ruet concerns argument a relationshi ial

, breach of duty) or causation. The failure todistinguish The causation. ofduty) or , breach COMPLAINT t party. DUT d iey o eut n the in result to likely to Plaintiff. to the

usin f oeeaiiy n a in foreseeability of question of the Court the of f's injury was reasonably foreseeable reasonably was injury f's al.App.4t ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION Y WITH Y WITH 5 . (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1167 (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th .

“ uty must be distinguished from foreseea from distinguished be must uty

lae oe gen more aluate ” Spec their role in the in role their

Def Sco ige bility in tort has caus has tort in bility

to result in result to

nt party.” nt endants causation posed to the j the to posed causation p tt ial Relatiial

They , 5Cal.App.4 h 1260, 12 1260, h exist nothing BREACH ’ s inqui s ing are woefully mistaken. woefully are br s also

each and and each - Scott v. Chevron U.S.A. Chevron v. Scott onship o rtc hm rm f from him protect to

. of speci

the ewe Dfnat and Defendants between

rly wheth erally id f am xeine that experienced harm of kind W ry brutal

72 al o prcae th appreciate to fail foreseeable / h CAUSATION th harm, and that liability may liability that and harm, on demurrer on ; THEIR CONTRARY CONTRARY THEIR ; – ile i frseblt questions foreseeability fic parts 73.

” at

s they Create aDuty THIRD A THIRD e exual abuse of Pla of abuse exual

516 He d confusion. d

c of a single cause of of cause single a of a ury or trier of trier or ury Court the re, usation . ‘ argue

r h ca the er duty

MENDE is whether this this whether is ul bs by abuse xual ’ .

. Jackson was was Jackson , in

Not only do only Not context oreseeab

” not tegory of of tegory a of light

. at

(1992) 5 5 (1992) L bility in bility D aabs v. aabs ’ t was it minor minor s fact. duty. intiff task s a is le ”

including 410[emphas parties third of conduct care have courts ([Citation danger. avoid and risks appreciate to capacity of C.A. care their into minors take 112 welfare.’ an 861 Cal.4th Inc. a where abuse sexual foreseeable 634 607, Cal.5th th d a that emphasize judgment.” mature minor, also see to protect 716 negligent harm of risk unreasonable an to exposed is person other the which in situation a in person another place to partici who In organization. member soccer minor a involved

circumstance e dpnet pn h dfnat who, defendant the upon dependent d 9 ;

giver , supra, , (2000) 81 Cal.App 81 (2000) ; Bigbee v. P v. Bigbee PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF Regents of Univ. of California v. Supe ofv. Univ. California of Regents “It is well established ... that one that ... established well is “It Defendant

” o v S v. Doe

ta gv rs to rise give that s conduct) of a third person.” third a of conduct)

hog te esnby for reasonably the through foreseeable vic the Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Youth States United v. Doe , 869 , s adde is at “ rqety rec frequently ie f sex of wife 869. ac. Tel. & Tel. Co. Tel. & Tel. ac. USYSA - o eac of s . 70. s

pro Court uperior uty of care is care of uty Furthermore, Kahn v. East Side Union High Scho High Union Side East v. Kahn d]. wd a owed “Generally, a “Generally,

“A special re special “A

.4th 377, 410 377, .4th Juarez , the court stated: “[i]n s “[i]n stated: court the ,

SAFECHU tim .” case h

stand

fedr h hd hlrn ly t hi home. their at play children had who offender urz . Bo v. Juarez s, such as Plaintiff, from foreseeable from tort s, suchas Plaintiff, uy o fe Plai offer to duty ognized dt t peet am cue b te netoa o criminal or intentional the by caused harms prevent to duty a

expl . in loco parentis loco in not the equivalen the not ” a defendant defendant a

(2015) “ grea

CK lationship e lationship relationship special

eet o Uni of Regents is h vros eainhp wee seil uy exists, duty special a where relationships various the ains (1983) ;

’ C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High Union Hart S. William v. C.A. Lugtu v. Californi v. Lugtu ter degree of care i care of degree ter S OPPOS re special esee ’ Sc y s general duty to exercise due care includes the includes care due exercise to duty general s 3 Cal.App.4th 237

COMPLAINT orsodnl, a sm cnrl vr h pla the over control some has correspondingly,

able conduct (including the reasonably foreseeable foreseeable reasonably the (including conduct able 34 Cal. 34 rior Courtrior

us f mrc, Inc. America, of outs Assn., Inc. Assn., ws a owes xists when ‘the plaintiff is plaintiff ‘the when xists nti ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION 6

co we um, lati wi f sm protection “some ff t of liability of t 3d 49, 58 49, 3d ae i sce porm wit programs soccer in pated . f aiona . Supe v. California of v. th those minors, and owe them a them owe and minors, those th nhp bten hlrn n ter adult their and children between onships

n ” ol Dist. ol

(2018)

affirmative a Highway Patrol Highway a exists ( s owed to children because of their lack lack their of because children to owed s “ USYSA 3, 24 239, nclude that, as in as that, nclude .

omi

. . Defendants

4 Cal.5th 4 … (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1017. 990, Cal.4th 31 (2003) Juarez v. Bo v. Juarez Reasonable care will vary under under vary will care Reasonable tted].) 6

”)

duty - ious conduct by ious conduct 20) 1 a.p.t 3 Cal.App.4th 81 (2000) 47. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1118, Cal.App.5th 8 (2017)

against against

607

Consequently, California California Consequently,

Because Plaintiff was a a was Plaintiff Because to to THIRD A THIRD

had

particularly vulnerable vulnerable particularly School (2001) 26 Cal.4th 703, Cal.4th 26 (2001) ,

protect rior Court Court rior y Sc y 621. Jua Id. an affirmative duty affirmative an [his] own lack of of lack own [his]

outs of outs

rez

at I Dist. Dist. MENDE nstitutions that nstitutions a na a h child a , there wa there , 410. duty of care. care. of duty Jackson. Jackson. (2012) 5 (2012)

America, America, (2018) duty not duty D U intiff’s

ti SYSA from from “ onal We Id 77, 77, s a a s

. 3 4 ;

to s his other the p the on fire opened who sniper a of home the of residents “ tantamount Id. funds aga ca of t opposing because abu Cal.App.4 apnot could he that peril of position a in placed was facilitate Plain the of actions the 13,29,36,112, and constitute “ Co. exist relationship relationsh special behavior, bizarre decedent's

… …

prevent

at 628 at inst the defen the inst

[e] provid by se 16) 6 ClAp2 6, 72 69, Cal.App.2d 264 (1968) s PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF es the father gave to the boy the father gave tothe trave te a oa lc o superv of lack total a ither In D . Plaintiff tee euly bsv in abusive sexually these d tiff ef In -

ing meiig him imperiling th a l 29. In rejecting In 29. he Plaintiff he the a the ie . Supe v. Wise nat to the took endants l , K.

o control to ack ca ofordinary at 410. at

through 115, [adult child] w [adult child] ister G. v G. Defendants and and ttack, the ttack,

s betwe s w dant, h dant, p between ip 116 . . S.B. . a

W s abused atabused Jackson s Defendants accepted Defendants

arranged for him him for arranged ,131

ise h purchas the

b I eing in a in eing

d. is mother is

(2020) 46 Cal.App.5 46 (2020) , ri en a en SAFECHU . court found court

’

. 222 Ca 222 duty r Court or

t 632. at TAC employees, employees, He

ith aith fr his only vi only his

minor employee minor n employer and a minor minor a and employer n eedns and defendants re , the Court the , wa f , riend, were used to wereriend, used . ” l.App.3d “ ¶ e ’ s

spec 5 s boyfriend, and the father of the boyfriend, alleg boyfriend, the of father the and boyfriend, s CK The C

ee placeee tolive ;

placed in a position of foreseeable ha foreseeable of position a in placed f xesv gifts. expensive of .

.A. teract ision

19) 2 ClAp3 10 Cal.App.3d 222 (1990) P no ’ As S OPPOS

ial relationship ial amel further imperil further o ’ ae a ntig o o ih minors, with do to nothing has case 53 Cal.4th 861 53 Cal.4th s home s lent threat was directed at a n a at directed was threat lent “

custo explained special relationship special COMPLAINT that held os whereby ions, at ctto] or [citation] L v Farmer v. L. a

to be be to th 1011 plaintiff Plaintiff dy of dy ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION

, does not render these organizations blameless organizations these render not , does 7 625

… - 12. while the father provided money, t money, provided father the while , buy drugs preciat ” in the plaintif the Plaintiff

ing ” e seclude conferdid not a duty. .

. ” In finding that the defendants had no had defendants the that finding In Defendants ,

mployee. mployee. no their into C TAC USYSA

.A nfetv supe ineffective Plai Plaintiff e,

. laintiff; one laintiff; where , 18) 112 (1980)

¶¶ , ntiff, ” protect nor

d from his from an

and f 8 a.p.t 1118 Cal.App.5th 8 , d caused d

27 Brocke brought a wrongful death action action death wrongful a brought 08 ih Jac with custody , and , Defendant no foreseeability no ,116 the , rely a ei

sp parents, and parents,

fostering fostering . ghborhood cat ghborhood tt v. Kitchen Boyd Mot Boyd Kitchen v. tt

bei Cal.App. himself on on ecial THIRD A THIRD , Defendants the rm, rvision litf se te two the sued plaintiff arranged for arranged ng the ng

kson Id. inapplicable ex inapplicable death of the mother. thedeath mother. of s

s h Cut sta Court the as a risk a ’

relat

at 633. io employee minor . from

the d 206 3d

MENDE ctto] may [citation] sho osi exists ionship TAC facilitated enhanced by enhanced as ’ grooming of grooming ing that the the that ing

. oter . his was not was his

employees employees which had had which Juarez

“ A special special A his ¶¶ , . [d]

’ D Simply s wife, s cerpts cerpts espite espite

work duty ,

. 10

ted h

81 or In is - ,

there was no f no was there and acc Plaintiff, butothers. Here, Pamel “ defendant convicted the of mother) Cal.App.4t a ignore the Conti Ro the and doctrine Cal.App.4 235 abou quip this conception duty tendenc k cousin son.

non illed on illed sex identally sho identally a - Id. unt/uncle a oe t a unborn an to owed was feasance PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF Plaintiff wa Plaintiff offende from bei from ’ a L. par s In facilitate a Robert; aff procurer “ In r Defendants In

ies, the defendants in ies, the defendants I I e of his rabbits. his of e t was t i ovos tha obvious is t

Eric J. Eric irmative misre irmative Todd v. Dow, v. Todd Hegyes v. Unijian Ent Unijian v. Hegyes , holding ” h

where wi the

ent injurie at 717 at r t ” oreseeab

ng molested during her church her during molested ng

for not disclos not for pre for not for not alleged not , th s, o de se m she does nor hr te la the where t after roughhousing after t

1214 v. Betty M. Betty v. s , finding f itm fr e husband her for victims of ny molest ny -

s that resulte s that - bir “ wl 19. at would would at ely on ely procured TAC th injury caseth injury and factors and , controlli ility

where it was held: was it where In

fe ofafe SAFECHU ” (1993) , te ie in wife the t presentations

¶ finding the family members h members family the finding Id. , and , a Conti v. Watcht v. Conti that the that 5

ation duty to s duty to (1999) 76 Cal.Ap 76 (1999) . w ” Wi

ing his convictions, prior to the to prior convictions, his ing Defendants

create at 10 at

by Defendants by sex ng d in child eeal fns o duty. no finds generally se

19 Cal.A 19 the the r, Inc. ers,

that defendants had a legal duty to exercise due ca due exercise to duty legal a had defendants that k ay ugsin ht famil . that suggestion any ake

” did not. t CK of

s heir adult son adult heir ’ 14.

a difficult b plaint Eric J. the convictions, prior s

de o the to due , parents of parents . has fender upervise seil relationshi special a ’ To S OPPOS Unlike Defendants, who well who Defendants, Unlike aea L. Pamela

dd as to how to as a

iff pp.4

COMPLAINT gloss overgloss the

nything (1 “ TAC , ower Bibl ower [w]

76 Cal.App.4 19 Cal.App.4 19 encouraged toenterhome children their 991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1 Cal.App.3d 234 991) w ’

th duri p - as e ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION sponsored field service field sponsored e likewise conclude under under conclude likewise e the defendant the irth. irth. .4 8 , ¶¶ mployees, in facilitating the abuse abuse the facilitating in mployees,

Hr, y otat Hln a pitd to pointed has Helen contrast, by Here, . 253 . th in

car

ng Id. to do with to dowith 29,35,45,47 a s was

‘ 715 Id. a safe , e & T & e

“ In a case i case a protective accident church

at 1109 se , ’ finding no duty, the Co the duty, no finding av the plaintiff sued the famil the sued plaintiff the

Id. e b te c the by een th th

Eri p similarities rade Society of New York, Inc. York, New of Society rade e

Indeed, .

at 729 Court couched the holding as one of of one as holding the couched Court

at 256. The plaintiff The 256. at t 727 at - c might have been if left alone with alone left if been have might c no duty to warn the plaintiff ( plaintiff the warn to duty no - res c n sponsored field servfield sponsored - o plaintiff’s - volving volving 10. that 49. usin could not control their adult their control not could usin - ponsibility toprotect minors relationship with the with relationship [Emphasis Added

Defendants Defendants - mmes we members y 28. 10 occurred -

Todd knew of Jackson of knew with . 3 ut s ucinn a a as functioning as ourt ” an , the , The

Id. THIRD A THIRD molestation the special rel special the

adult Pamela L. os o address not does

at 1233 at Court Court

co in don ur

cousin 198 su t found that no that found t ic MENDE t reasoned that that reasoned t of no of ’ y members of members y distinguish ]. t explain : e. ed e cig to acting re .

re to prevent prevent to re .

” D

, Eri

defendant ’ his cous his Id.

efenda t only the the only t abusive s for a who was who tionship c J. c D

(2015) (2015) or his or “

. ho

pre , 76 76 , t nts nts no he he ed in w - -

Def had parties; not Id. that par MySpace defendant attacked were made a public wherechildren were minor a custodial actual p the finding stabbi unprovoked behavior Mege for Doland the control did control to ability chapter local the address not C 33 (2019) pro the their entire argument

tection of tection hs ae has case This endan facts demonstrat facts failing to protect aga protect to failing state a claim for negligenc for claim a state a duty to protect its students from a from students its protect to duty a “ ris (tha arties defendant did not engage in engage not did defendant ff PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF , the ,

Regen rely Defendants no duty no (1981) 12 (1981)

n ws hn released then was and rahd i duty his breached ’ a kno

h al.App.5 emphasis ty usband t children.

s inv y gro a by , 4 Cal.5 4 , … , the Court stated Court the , of t

premises

wn, dangerous employee the defendant of the premthe bility must aff must bility

itation itation ” 3 Cal.App.3d 3 ng on the on ng o ern o dutie on bearing no

Id. ing their ing dl duhe ad ahr cets o inferen no creates father) and daughter adult

th was admitted to a psychiatric wing of a hos a of wing psychiatric a to admitted was to their position that Jacksonto their position was

Def at 533. at 70 t n its alleged its n on p f nnw pryor, n the and partygoers, unknown of up

h on SAFECHU inst inst , thus this passing r passing this thus , ’ i , which held that a that held which , s liability, but instead found that the natio the that found instead but liability, s 607 ses endants further rel further endants

Mel not myspace. landlords, who brought who landlords, relationship to Plai to relationship a .

against e ttacks by ttacks I supports “ ton v. B v. ton consid T irmatively appe irmatively d. 2 o t atvl cet a out an create actively to not : he court held that t that held court he 51

“ any active conduct that increased the risk of risk the increased that conduct active any at . CK [w] , 83 inability to con to inability the Id. c ered. ’ om for a om for here, as in the instant case, the case, instant the in as here, S OPPOS o s oustred .

the national the Defendan P court the foreseeable at laintiff COMPLAINT e to wed

ir 255 adult n eferenc y on y

husband/ rejected

n ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION ar. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4 183 (2010)

9 ntiff and ntiff . event. event. ’

s ” ts are similarly aresimilarly ts

children One

Bar position Id. trol Jackson. trol - he danger. e by Defendants is unfounded. is Defendants by e partyg

claims organiz

se criminal acts we acts criminal se enborg finding a duty upon duty a finding father to 261. at Id. day

o their their

at . po , an oer of a of oer

TAC te ubn/ahr omte an committed husband/father the ,

given that the court held court the that given a . 527. W 527. Id. ation fld ut all suit, filed n werful tocontrol, Defend gainst the gainst d

Megeff ability to control control to ability v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Frater Epsilon Alpha Sigma v. Defendants rely on a famil a on rely Defendants -

of nta disc instead at 629. at , ¶¶ While Defend While si pital - e f n blt t control, to ability an of ce . control and dangerous public public dangerous and control tuated Id. he local fraternity cha fraternity local 29,35,46,48

, 123 Cal.A 123 , natural relationship between between relationship natural th nal organization lacked the the lacked organization nal

n the n after exhibiting after at 85 at

Regents 521 wife and daughter. and wife THIRD A THIRD to the local chapterlocal the to re not foreseeable, and and foreseeable, not re

a , where where , usses pla - mo 86. gn ta te host the that eging harm to plaintiffs. to harm intiff an

the ther and ther - further T 49,115,116 pp.3d at 261. at pp.3d ts dev ts u MENDE he circumstances n the defendant defendant the s ar

known

In case a ants ignore ants ignore pter danger rived they rived they university university ote nearly ote u Megeff v. v. Megeff daughter ndercuts ndercuts ial case, ial D did no did

Id. could could .

third that that

nity ous the

In In ” - t

a o Scin 11166.5. Section of (a) emp their reporter or Jackson ind 49, health the ensure to was childcare Defendants, with involved co showing facts pleaded has their in children the protect (despite exercise somethe control over harm added).) controlle based be may of with comply a of notification

the 114, ustry erain program recreation

by other students,t

PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF abuse 116 Defendants 2. The prevent the harm. as school had the decide not whether a had UCLA concluded university’s the on focused acts wrongful foreseeable reasonably “ s

’ , Rosen’s complaint alleg complaint Rosen’s s fitness s . In TAC d or [wi or d

hired em hired loy at Defendants at Id. i Defendants t Has .

addr . analysis analysis Defendants were Defendants

ees who are mandated reporters with the statement requi statement the with reporters mandated are who ees As explained by explained As at (b)(6) at , on the defendant’s relationship with ‘ with relationship defendant’s the on

th ¶¶ ess n employees n s law is . t

th] ... the foreseeable victim of that conduct that of victim foreseeable the ... th] o 48 TAC ployees to ployees ing claim Protect - s n is 49, - ’

(8). whether a college a whether

s ¶ ,

“ w ,

” 114, he exp Court ( Inability to Control Inability SAFECHU safety and welfare of minor minor of welfare and safety t iie to limited ot TAC

¶ as

r hs dte rqie iet conta direct require duties whose or Jackson ” C ea Cod Penal 8,114

t S Id ompanies he Plai entirely ceded to Staikos a Staikos to ceded entirely 116

’ ta en nt care

the created p.620 . at ¶ , status as a as status welfare ks eve ikos rol sure . d )

. 139 uty to protect Rosen under the circumstances alleged, circumstances the under Rosen protect to uty I Supreme Court in R in Court Supreme

s UCLA had separate duties to protect her and to “control the “control to and her protect to duties separate had UCLA s .

ndividuals who who ndividuals CK ( etn asi Setting a s powerful so was duty to protect students from foreseeable violence foreseeable from students protect to duty TAC ntiff

Regents those minors those

) lain e ’ to guide to ,

that emp that S OPPOS

of Plain hte te cn cont can they whether n contr n § , (a) , ¶¶ , [ ed 11165.7(c) owes a duty of care to protect to care of duty a owes b emphasis added COMPLAINT m ut ut : , 116 andated andated iltd hs mandator this violated

supra a ” de tiff tiff olled hiring, and firi and hiring, olled lso, Ignores

eparate duty to control Thompson’s behavior to behavior to toeparate Thompson’s duty control m loy ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION 10 Jackson Argument Ignores Argument Jackson of third parties/other students.” Here, we have have we Here, students.” parties/other third of (b)

entor ’

that

so as toprotect administrate - m ) safety (e) , either the person whose person the either .

andated r regardl

ht t that egents, eporter eporter kids in the the in kids Section ship . eedns wd a owed Defendants nd Levine, whose whose Levine, nd

ta ] and made made and

of young child young of ikos and ikos hey t ess of control over Jack over control of ess he F r “[a] duty to control, warn, or protectwarn,or control, to “[a]duty be eportersare o Ja rol 11166.5(a)

a private day camp, youth center youth camp, day private a coul .’” given. given. acts care of Defendants. Defendants. of care t ih minors with ct him Regents

ng of ng affirmative representations of of representations affirmative dn’t ck y statute, (b) this violation violation this (b) statute, y Levine Levine Show

red pursuan red son from foreseeablefrom harm. students from foreseeable foreseeable from students Defendan ae cin gis him against action take “ THIRD A THIRD ren in the in ren

, eti employees, certain required to: to: required pr further requires that a a that requires further

affirmative n , at , ing but managed the managed

imary responsib imary t conduct needs to be to needs conduct he Separate Duty

Control 619 whether , are mandated mandated are , ts, by failing to to failing by ts, t to subdivisi to t MENDE - ente 20 son TAC “… [ . , rtainme emphasis

th we need need we . Plaintiff Plaintiff children

uy to duty D pr Having Having , ¶¶48 , ey ovi ility

and and can can on de nt ” s -

C. 1607, dictates policy intent wrongdoing such for rejected. defense harassment sexual insur on Staikos) Cal.App.4th 163 (2008) dange owner who 563, positions. important for persons unfit of employment subord acting person simply perpetrator the of ¶¶ sexual childhood of i of type the was abuse, proximately dangerous Lo of City v. 1

Defendants 131

ot rpr Cenr v Sequo v. Cleaners Drapery Coit ance coverage ance 571 commi 1613 io PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF rs - ina 39 of ignore T “ nal misconduct nal

ness Al f operated f t employees, its of ; HE PLAINTIFF HASHE ; Id. or

Defendants, Defendants, te,

s Angeles s - Evidence Code Evidence see also see

huh hr ha there though cite 14.

t caused injury to the Plaintiff, (c) the injury caused, c caused, injury the (c) Plaintiff, the to injury caused t President its at 1605,1615. at

the imposition of punitive damages upon the employer serve employer the upon damages punitive of imposition the for liabilit for torts in a managerial capacit managerial a in inconvenien

Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego v. v. Diego San of Bishop Catholic Roman Defe netoa croae malfeasan corporate intentional

’ in concert wi in concert

1 s identity s (1998) (1998)

claim claim case Civil Code Civil ndants ndants and b to sought individual of class the was abuse, … y h . ” ofits Jackson’s status as a managing agent managing as a status Jackson’s njury soug njury ad the duty to adequately retain, supervise, hire, and warn agains warn and hire, supervise, retain, adequately to duty the ad

66 SAFECHU al o ack to fail I with no ne no with ’

filed by a former former a by filed , 10 4, d. §669 s t facts.

ignore the be n fut n h pr o a oprto o ohr emp other or corporation a of part the on fault no been s Cal.App.4th 133 Cal.App.4th T

, and , including

conduct at 1606 at he mana

th . – §

“ A 11

2330. A

wrongdoer Jackson to procure children children procure to Jackson makes no makes ht to ht

gin CK DEQUATELY mandated reporter mandated . olde th nowledge gli - . 07 Other g agents g miscalculation they miscalculation y either does an outrageous act or approves of the act by a a by act the of approves or act outrageous an does either y

’ ia Ins. Co. Co. Ins. ia Id. gent supervisio gent S OPPOS

himself . be prevented by the statutes, a statutes, the by prevented be eedns ey ncss novn lo involving cases on rely Defendants

Coit 3 C COMPLAINT for the the for

oit oit ” mana “ adult

too recognized recognized entity for . ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION s 11 uh t hv is in its have to ought Santil

log e claim Superior Court Superior powerf

ce ig gns f h De the of agents ging “unlawful corporate practices “unlawfulcorporate employee, where employee,

19) 4 a.p.t 1595 Cal.App.4th 14 (1993) PLE was des was os o enjoy not does

” must report must n ic of their own argument. argument. own their of ic that a that

a v Rmn ahlc ihp f Fresno of Bishop Catholic Roman v. lan provides provides

White v. Ultramar, Inc. Ultramar, v. White allegation D ul to be reported be to ul t made inre

hat an employer is employer an hat NEGLIGENCE supervisor cribed f

( actual notice to the corp tothe notice actual abuse or 1996) 1996) hildhood sexu hildhood s e protected by the statute the by protected e any .

as Id. l

42 Cal.App.4th 1556 Cal.App.4th 42 the corporation the ying on ying must have notice of the employees the of notice have must

s nd (d) the Plaintiff, a victim victim a Plaintiff, the (d) nd

suspected abuse suspected urer “ . insurance at 1605 at directly T ” AC THIRD A THIRD fendants

exception s as s . eed it defend

, ¶ Coit strictly liable for the for liable strictly . w

al molestation and molestation al 8 ” (1999) 21 Cal.4th Cal.4th 21 (1999) Coit Coit and a deterrent to deterrent a

. , for whichfor

ee emplo level . benefits Defendants the as Jackson, MENDE but oration (e strictly arises from a from arises , . tendered the the tendered

.g., Levine, Levine, .g.,

, Defendants Defendants and and which was was which Coit loyer, if a a if loyer, regardless regardless t . D Mendoza .

. known known

p Id. T liable s an is ublic ublic

yees yees AC

rely

the the at at , MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252 -9990 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

h epomn o improp of employment the resulting for harm toliability agents subject is provi …which person E. Penal Code CANRA under Defe dut law common the to addition in ¶¶ children, with tasked children Cal.A especially courts, D. Plaintiff has ade w there Defendants TAC 844 resultthe of [and] duty; legal such of breach a (b) care; due use created. were Defendants contact 2

Defenda 26,

. ndants were chi were ndants , ¶ , The 46, PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF pp.4th with

“The other view, which view, other “The PL THE Supervisio Negligent T “ ¶ as nothing nothing as for negligently hiring an incompetent or unfit em unfit or incompetent an hiring negligently for

n 48 T 3,5

HE PLAI HE

th ts rely on tsrely on he e he litf a ple has Plaintiff

and the Plaintiff the - ey 49, ,8,114 ing injur ing interact f §11166, at urther urther lements of a ca a of lements nw ol b aon Jackson around be would knew

des in pertinent in des 112, , 1 h quately ple regardless AINTIFF HAS 235 ad Federico v. Superior Court Federico Superior v. . 115,116 NTIFF HAS regarding regarding the Defendants Defendants

knew of various various of knew and ma and . y.’” ld ca ld , ignoring ignoring , et seq

knowledge TAC Defendants y

could Evan F. v. F. Evan SAFECHU r , ¶¶114 , e custodians e d .

d ,131 nag of whether whether of

This is This is e

a i a is n causation the use of action for negligence are well established…(a) a legal duty to duty legal a established…(a) well are negligence for action of use per r mple facts mple

child

ing o bu it about do part: ‘A person cond person ‘A part: knew ; - complaint California follows, is that an that is follows, California

116. 116. ADEQUATELY PLE ADEQUATELY ADEQUATELY PLE ADEQUATELY Santillan ha of os r i or sons children in children

an Hughson United Methodist Church UnitedMethodist Hughson via d a duty to supe to duty a d

Federico care abusive abusive other supervision procedurother supervision Jackson was was Jackson ’ ta Defe that y Jackson

S OPPOS l ter of theory ble of harm who were responsible for re for responsible were who the abuser w abuser the

, (1997) 59 C 59 (1997) ta evidencing evidencing whi COMPLAINT , , kers 163

m n isno ch specifically pleads that children were one of the rea ofthe one children were that pleads ch specifically conduct by Jackson by conduct tuetlte i wr involvi work in strumentalities

isstat ’ the from his conduct if he conduct isn his from if .

in s ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION to the Pla 12

Cal.App.4th

C.A ( help to to help ir care ir

TAC nd al.App.4 ing allegedly appropr (c) rv . as the lowest ranking em ranking lowest the as ants (and (and ants , ucting an activity through servants or other other or servants through activity an ucting a duty a n

ise Jackson, as they were created were they as Jackson, ise ¶ , giec that egligence

Defendants. h lw n algtos f the of allegations and law the the breach as the pro the as breach the , D D intiff accepted the c the accepted 11 th

NEGLIGENT NEGLIGENT SUPERVIS NEGLIG Cal.4th Cal.4th iate behavior behavior iate

1207 4) owed by owed abusing children abusing at p

2 employer and negligence h , loyee hi employees their

10 e to .

ad showing control showing

TAC – claim porting suspected sexual abu sexual suspected porting at 11 …C ENT ENT manag

a be akolde b acknowledged been has Defendant . 869;

ustody

, ¶46. , ( Jackson was Jackson As sta As may be liable to a third a to liable be may 1992) 8 Cal.App 8 1992) aliforn egligent orreckless: …in egligent THIRD A THIRD HIRING

ih children. with n aet wo were who agents ing ximate e also see

. , care and control andcare , g ik f harm of risk ng Defendants

, conferring a duty. duty. a conferring , ted previously, and previously, ted ployee or Jackson or ployee TAC i a follows the rule the follows a ) s

owed owed MENDE o rtc him protect to “ o

incidentally , ¶ . or legal cause legal or ver Jackson.

Conti ION 117 c

to protec to omplai .4th 828, .4th Plaintiff sons conten D - . 118.

, TAC ” 235

in in

nt. se se o to

y d f t . , , .

Plaintiff man minor ho fight defendants to Plaintiff the Cal. avoid to how orth (either directly educating him warning, or training Jua r taken have to Scouts the on careof duty a of imposition 409 377, Cal.App.4th par F. Jackson was exe ch other and Defendants negligence in action perpetrator] Co. b employeehad Added]. [Emphasis others educating acc that institutions that show

l prote ild lding oflding ents) about risks of abuse, in y in abuse, of risks about ents) rez rted by rted

3d 425 3d (1987) 189 Ca aging agents PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF s [.]’”

. from the risk of sexual abuse by adult volunteers involved in scouting programs, such as such programs, scouting in involved volunteers adult by abuse sexual of risk the from Courts Courts FAILURE WARN,NEGLIGENT TO TRAIN OREDUCATE , J w csn a a nw dne t mnr children minor to danger known a was ackson

manag Juarez them when they when them . their hich ction

, F Evan argue

S a dang or anyone above her, can be imp be can her, above anyone or eparate such a risk. a such

ae fou have avoid e . lead to further molestations further to lead employ

Juarez ing agent ing en and th

and that Defendantsand had that Jackson Jackson TAC l.App.3d 1420,1426 l.App.3d

er and and er v Hgsn ntd ehds Church Methodist United Hughson v. . previously previously . I n from general from Jackson, given Jackson, The matter involve matter The – ¶¶ ,

ey ey Hart 10 on ees and managing agents. agents. managing and ees d th nd

SAFECHU ” s he was s . failed todisclo

couldn

the facts, the 5,13, Id. ran face “ te or held court the , In conclusion, consideration of the the of consideration conclusion, In ept minor ept ipsto o a uy o w to duty a of imposition e

see also see reported for harassing the plaintiff. the reportedharassing for the business business the

11 a for a ’ outh programs. outh t be disciplined disciplined be t till 5(b),(c). CK negligence saying that Defendants are not the Boy Scouts, they miss t miss they Scouts, Boy the not are Defendants that saying their knowledge of his sexually abusive propensities abusive sexually his of knowledge their

eseeable risk eseeable ’ retained S OPPOS . “ s into theircare, are into s Taraso se this fact, this se If failureand knowledge ofthe by toact harassment s questi s COMPLAINT even ac more . Defendants Defendants

t hat TAC ht ngiet iig li wa claim hiring negligent a that ,

uted to uted with nowarning tothe chiwith ff v. ff ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION 13 to duty a had Defendants

ons of fact which cannot be d be cannot which fact of ons Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. America, of Scouts Boy v. Juarez becau atered to children, and and children, to atered , ¶¶ , TAC

. Regents of Regents

Daniels and

[employer] 26,

rough his parent or adult volunteers) about adult volunteers) about hisparentor rough , ¶¶5,1 , ute, direct kn se speculat easonable protective measures to protect to measures protective easonable 46, a

lso

h arn responsible forresponsible

, e was was e 48 hc ws nw b Defe by known was which

246 Cal.App.4th 246 concea

tan or train , 3, University of California of University - 49, 19) ClAp4h 2, 836 828, Cal.App.4th 8 (1992) 11 , e ad hn ignore then and , Hart v. Nav. Hart [plaintiff] the 5(b),(c). 102 Rowland led t led owledge of dangers posed to to ofdangersowledge posed ir owner ir , 115,116 dct mnr (r their (or minors educate

ldren ortheir parents his

warn, THIRD A THIRD Jackson IS PROPER IS

training, warningand training, Defendants

informatio ha t'l Mort t'l atr supports factors .

at s stated a c a stated s . poe we an when proper s Yet educate,

ecided here ecided Juarez

1167 MENDE took no role in role no took ,

Levi gage & Land & gage the

. . n from the [a general general [a knew (1976) 17 (1976) (2000) 81 81 (2000)

serve and ne

D . ndants ause of ause control control

While was a a was .

” train train

. [the that that s

the the

Id he to to ’ .

ratified an o ratified an li ¶ are Jackson c the to Although they r and Dist. Protection Fire a the that recognition menta through injuries to susceptible po alterna three by outrageous be to determined be may conduct society.” ex to as extreme so be must outrageous, emo o conduct the that (c) and conduct, con outrageous G. ¶5,114 th claiming action.] of cause a of part a to lie not does demurrer

¶ able for an employee's act where the where act employee's an for able t hr wr o were there at 29,31 iin hc gvs i p him gives which sition

H. horrifi tio were PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF

- a d nal is generally a factual quest as such or investigate “ Ratificatio LIAB T T 116) , ’ ont 48 T s

o allegeIIED HE PLA HE Trerice v. Blue Cross of California of Cross Blue v. Trerice th created e hoy o theory he c sexual abuse of kids of abuse sexual -

rary. t Jackson at 49 and show that Defe that show and istress. riginally unaut ,

ILIT or ,116

assault or battery. battery. or assault ut () tha (b) duct, epresent how a corporation should how TAC , at least at , n is n INTIFF HASINTIFF ther ther . If n is this . Y ni M . ueir Court Superior v. M Angie

IS PLEIS ct (1987)

respond to charges that a that charges to respond ,

“ rtfcto i gnrly ap generally is ratification f can s are likely to result in illness thro illness in result to likely are s Plaintiff ¶¶48 employ reporters mandated a ed

n alternate theory to theory alternate n SAFECHU

in part, in

’ Jackson fitmentor as a t horized tort horized - t

D o r 43 Cal.3d 148, 155, n. 155, 148, Cal.3d 43 49 eport himself eport ot h Panif ufrd eee emotiona severe suffered Plaintiff the e t dmg te litf' itrs; ( interest; plaintiff's the damage to wer

, VICARIOUSLY, THROUGH ,112,114

ndants in the face of unequi of face the in must the ADEQUATELY PLE ADEQUATELY

Whether an e Whetheran ion. to manage to CK f the Defendants were the actual and proximate cause of his his of cause proximate and actual the were Defendants the f definition

l d l ” pl ’ empl S OPPOS

actively C.R ead a ... istress; or (3) acts intentionally or unreasonably with the the with unreasonably or intentionally acts (3) or istress; , 116 ” ceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized a in tolerated usually that of bounds all ceed

COMPLAINT be

, 169Cal. App.4tha C.R oyer eit oyer ( , (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 8 3d App. Cal.(1989) 209 , ,131 nd prove (a)in e that Defendantsnd prove engaged Demurrer minor less

of respondeat superi respondeat mployer has ratified an empl ratifiedan has mployer , 169 Cal. App.4tha ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION 14 n employee committed an intentional t intentional an committed employee n assisted ( , outrageous .

liable for having to these children Defendants 95 3 ClAp4h 1217 Cal.App.4th 37 1995) her authorized the tortious act tortious the authorized her children d y Defendants by ed 7 vocal

. plie

22:1 ,

cu their into minors took Defendants While Defendants Defendants While D Jac wee n mlyr al to fails employer an where d ug

IIED notice of his dangerousness his of notice kson , it isunc , it

h mental distress.” distress.” mental h who 9 ti -

22 ve criteria: (1) abuses a relation or or relation a abuses (1) criteria: ve ee rae to created were

t 111 . RATIFICATION

’ or s ) woul h Defendants the ,

’ an owner whoa is pedophile.an owner

mole t 1110 s parents, they s parents, [where] 0 dsrs a a eut f that of result a as distress l learwhat co .

d 2) knows the plaintiff is is plaintiff the knows 2) h sol have should who 78,

st be mentored by Jackson by mentored be

THIRD A THIRD at [Emphasis added]

c ion oyee's conduct oyee's

88 reate a st a reate an 3.

. Cole of employer may be may employer

an Courts have held held have Courts “ uld be o odc, o be to Conduct, MENDE Plaintif did d had know . r subsequently r

don

v. Fair Oaks Fair v. raw man in man raw xtreme and ort, . . ’

T address t facilitate f h

. e ( . TAC TAC ledge ledge sto

facts

. , ,

MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 In In be n eve h “cour the liberally. Date: October October 2, 2020 Date: P the placing By Defendan 13,101,112,116,131. Defendants, childre to access “ratification.” of ratificationFor §340.1(b), which has only become l become only has which §340.1(b), equ Defendants breached these duties to the Plaintiff. T duties tothePlaintiff. Defendants breachedthese Plaintiff. and Defendants between duty relationship.” fou G Barbara A.v. John part dependent the over influence unique exert to position superior a in is confidence and trust under ratification principles. liability vicarious conduct, imposing claiming they claiming dd n mrl sca, oetc o mrl proa rltosi a wl a o a legal a on as well as relationship personal merely or domestic, social, moral, a on nded al terms, because the because terms, al J. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PLAINTIFF REQUESTS LEAVE TO AME TO LEAVE REQUESTS ALTERNATIVE, PLAINTIFF INTHE J. I. PLAINTIFF JAMES PLAINTIFF The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court overrule the Demurrer in its entirety. Demurrer inits the The requests respectfully Plaintiff overrule that theCourt In fiducia a of essence “The A PLAINTIFF HAS an “authorized” action. “authorized” an se or scope or se Landis v. SuperiorLandis Court h alternati the ae o hs tts as status his on based Id. to apply, t apply, to n, Jackson is Jackson are not are There anif n otc with contact in laintiff even aft even ” of his employment. his of , (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 369, 383. 369, Cal.App.3d 145 (1983) ., ve, was a was SAFECHU “vic he original tort need no need tort original he person i person Plaint an e an er having notice of his his noticeer of having DEQUATELY PLE ariously liable,” ariously ts, as ts, confidential, trusting, and special and trusting, confidential, mployee Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. Stuff v. Murillo Rite f ses ev t aed s o the to as amend to leave seeks iff ry or confide or ry n whom trust and confidence is reposed and who accepts that accepts who and reposed is confidence and trust whom n CK (1965) 232548. Cal.App.2d aw as as aw K. Plaintiff’ y ______By: ’ S OPPOS T of Defendants of m a AC COMPLAINT Demurrer of January 1, January of CO the the ______MANLY MANLY LXCNY s.attorneys Esq. ALEX CUNNY, , ¶¶ , s employer s Defen nr employee inor ntial relat ntial ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION 15 NCLUSION . Plaintiff stood Plaintiff 101,171-73. t be “within the course and scope of business” or or business” of scope courseand the “within be t ako, ih nweg of knowledge with Jackson, BREACH FIDUCIARY OF DUTY. D AC CUNNY ants cursorily dants , 15:1 , abuse , TWR & FINALDI STEWART , , ¶¶3,11-13,171-73. STEWART ( . ionship is that the parties do not deal on deal not do parties the that is ionship 00 ev oam to Leave 2020. , TAC -2. But Defendants But -2. owed him duties as duties him owed “A ‘confidential relationship’ may be be may relationship’ ‘confidential “A Defendants , , ______Esq. , ¶¶ , i ter custody their n (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 833, Cal.App.4th 65 (1998) relationship relationship TAC 9,120.) a cl ttorneys & FINALDI aim t aim ______“cover-up” , ¶¶29,35,46,48-49,115. aiid a ratified THIRD A THIRD In facilitating In hat end should be granted be should end in loco parentis in fo fo creating a fiduciary a creating Jackson was not in in not was Jackson ignore the doctrine doctrine the ignore r r James Safechuck James r a ______James Sa James Jac fiduciary would. would. fiduciary T . MENDE et Jackson gent analysis under under analysis ND. sns abuse, kson’s AC Jackson’s ¶3,11- , D with 852. y.” y.” ’s MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 tony ih Manly, with attorney J P MJJ testify ascontents. toits competently would and could upon, called if and Declaration, this of contents the and case this of “Plaintiff”) the (hereinafter, “Defendants”) Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint (“ “Defendants”)to theDemurrer ThirdAmended Complaint foregoingcorrect. true is and forComplaint Damages. DECLAR roductions 1. I, 2. .Atce a Ehbt 1 i a re n cret oy fthe of copy correct and true a is “1” Exhibit as Attached 3. xctdti n a fOtbr 2020 October, day of Executed2nd this the that California of state the of laws the under perjury of penalty under declare hereby I ALEX CUNNY, hereby declare: hereby ALEX CUNNY, ATION OF VINCE W. FINALDI IN FINALDI W. VINCE OF ATION I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am an an am I California. of State the in law practice to licensed duly attorney an am I hs elrto i md i spot f the of support in made is Declaration This OPPOS Ic ( Inc. , ITION TO DEMURRER TO DEMURRER TO ITION Stewart & Finaldi, attorneys of record for for record of attorneys Finaldi, & Stewart “Productions” DECLARTION OF ALEX OF DECLARTION , in the above the in , and ) - entitled matter. I am personally familiar with the facts the with familiar personally am I matter. entitled By SUPPORT OF OF SUPPORT atIrvine, California. at Irvine,atCalifornia. ______: M 1 THIRD A THIRD J V JJ ALEX CU ALEX ______Declarant CU ALEX ent CUNNY, ESQ. MENDE rs Ic ( Inc. ures, PLAINTIFF JAMES SAFECHU JAMES PLAINTIFF Plaintiff’ TAC NNY NNY, Esq., ” D COMPLAINT D ). , Esq., Opsto t Defendants to Opposition s Plaintiff James Safechuck Safechuck James Plaintiff “Ventures” hr Amende Third (collectively ) CK ’ S d ,

EXHIBIT “1” THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JOHN C. MANLY, Esq. (State Bar No. 149080) VINCE W. FINALDI (State Bar No. 238279) 2 ALEX CUNNY (State Bar No. 291567) MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 3 19100 Von Kannan Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 · 4 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 Fax: (949) 252-9991 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff JAMES SAFECHUCK 6

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,eENTRAL DISTRICT 9 :.,,c.,,--e.s1

10 JAMES SAFECHUCK, an individual, Case No.: BC545264 11 [Related to civil case, BC508502, Wade Robso Plaintiff, v. MJJ Productions, et al., and probate case i5 0 12 ..Jg BPI 17321, In re Estate ofMichael Joseph <( w vs. ~3~ Jackson] u. en~ 13 "" , m MJJ PRODUCTIONS, INC., a California [Both cases assigned to the Honorable Judge t- ~ ~ er:: <( - > > DAMAGES FOR: ...Jo~zo <(;;; 16 Defendants. :!; - (1) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF 17 EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; (2) NEGLIGENCE; 18 (3) NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION; (4) NEGLIGENT RETENTION/HIRING; 19 (5) NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN OR EDUCATE; and 20 (6) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.

21 [Filed pursuant to C.C.P. § 340.lJ

22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

23 Complaint Filed: May 9, 2014 Trial Date: None Set 24

28 1 Plaintiff JAMES SAFECHUCK ("Plaintiff') hereby alleges against Defendants MJJ

2 PRODUCTIONS, INC., MJJ VENTURES, INC., and Does 6 through 50, inclusive

3 ("Defendants") as follows:

4 PARTIES

5 1. Plaintiff is a male individual and resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of

6 California. He brings this action pursuant to C.C.P. section 340.1 for the childhood sexual abuse

7 he suffered at the hands of Michael Joseph Jackson, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, INC., and MJJ

8 VENTURES, INC.

9 2. Michael Jackson (hereinafter "MICHAEL JACKSON") was one of the most

10 famous and successful entertainers in pop music history. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and

11 thereupon alleges that, at all times relevant herein, MICHAEL JACKSON was a resident of the

12 State of California and maintained residences in the Counties of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara.

QO 13 Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that MICHAEL JACKSON died ..Jg -> > ..JOE:zo <( .,.. 17 place of business located in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Plaintiff is further ~~ 18 informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant herein, MJJ

19 PRODUCTIONS was a company established by MICHAEL JACKSON as his primary business

20 entity and the entity that held most or all of the copyrights to MICHAEL JACKSON's music and

21 videos. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MICHAEL

22 JACKSON was the president/owner and a representative/agent ofMJJ PRODUCTIONS at all

23 times relevant herein, and that in that capacity, MJJ PRODUCTIONS had the ability to exercise

24 control over MICHAEL JACKSON's business and personal affairs. Plaintiff is further informed

25 and believes, and thereon alleges, that MICHAEL JACKSON, with MJJ PRODUCTIONS' full

26 knowledge, consent, and assistance, exploited this relationship with MJJ PRODUCTIONS to gain

27 access to Plaintiff, and to set up, facilitate and arrange meetings and encounters between

28 Ill

2 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 MICHAEL JACKSON and the minor Plaintiff and other children for the purpose of MICHAEL

2 JACKSON' s engaging in childhood sexual abuse of Plaintiff and others.

3 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant MJJ

4 VENTURES, INC. ("MJJ VENTURES") is a California corporation, with a principal place of

5 business located in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Plaintiff is further infonned

6 and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times relevant herein, MJJ VENTURES was a

7 company established by MICHAEL JACKSON in part for the purpose of employing Plaintiff to

8 work with MICHAEL JACKSON on various projects, and further, that MICHAEL JACKSON

9 was the president/owner and a representative/agent ofMJJ VENTURES at all times relevant

10 herein, and that in that capacity, MJJ VENTURES had the ability to exercise control over

11 MICHAEL JACKSON' s personal and business affairs. Plaintiff is further informed and believes,

12 and thereon alleges, that MICHAEL JACKSON, with MJJ VENTURES' full knowledge, ci 0 13 consent, and assistance, exploited this relationship to gain access to Plaintiff, and to set up, ...Jg ~w z !::C\I - :, .,... I.LU)~ 14 facilitate, and arrange meetings and encounters between MICHAEL JACKSON and Plaintiff for oc:I : 0) I- g; :'f 0:: <( z z 0:: 15 the purpose of MICHAEL JACKSON engaging in childhood sexual abuse of Plaintiff. ~ ,d2 2 :J w ct:< I-~ C) Cl) z w 16 5. In performing the acts complained of herein, MICHAEL JACKSON acted with the ~ 0 z >- > > ...Jo.!!:zo ~.,... 17 full knowledge, consent and cooperation of MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES, who :!JE~ 18 were his co-conspirators, collaborators, facilitators and alter egos for the childhood sexual abuse

19 alleged herein. MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES were held out to the public to be

20 businesses dedicated to creating and distributing multimedia entertainment by MICHAEL

21 JACKSON, however, in fact, they actually served dual purposes. The thinly-veiled, covert second

22 purpose of these businesses was to operate as a child sexual abuse operation, specifically

23 designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims. In fact, under this dual

24 purpose, MICHAEL JACKSON and select few managing agents/employees ofMJJ

25 PRODUCTIONS's and MJJ VENTURES's inner circle designed, developed and operated what is

26 likely the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization

27 the world has known. As a result thereof, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ

28 VENTURES are liable for MICHAEL JACKSON's acts of childhood sexual abuse within the

3 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 meaning of CCP §§340. l(a)(2) and (3), and 340.1 (b )(2), in that said entities owed a duty of care

2 to the Plaintiff, and their wrongful, intentional and/or negligent acts, as well as knowing failure to

3 take reasonable steps and implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual

4 conduct by MICHAEL JACKSON, were a legal cause of the childhood sexual abuse which

5 resulted in injury to Plaintiff as alleged herein. Plaintiff was one of several children who were

6 entrapped by MJJ PRODUCTIONS's and MJJ VENTURES's child sexual abuse procurement

7 and facilitation organization.

8 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the true names and

9 capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants named herein as

10 DOES 6 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by

11 such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this First Amended Complaint to allege their true

12 names and capacities when such have been ascertained. Upon information and belief, each of the i50 13 said Doe Defendants is responsible in some manner under C.C.P. §§ 340.l(a)(l), (2) and (3), and ..Jg <( w z != ~ - :,co U.U)N 14 340.1 (b )(2) for the occurrences herein alleged, and their actions were a direct and legal cause of ccS ~ 0) I- ~ ~ et:: <( ~ <( z 0 15 the childhood sexual abuse which resulted in injury to the Plaintiff as alleged herein. s 2- > > ..J a~ za 17 mentioned herein, there existed a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants and each of ~--

19 to exist. Defendants and each of them, were the successors-in-interest and/or alter egos of the

20 other Defendants, and each of them, in that they purchased, controlled, dominated and operated

21 each other without any separate identity, observation of formalities, or other manner of division.

22 To continue maintaining the facade of a separate and individual existence between and among

23 Defendants, and each of them, would serve to perpetrate a fraud and an injustice.

24 8. At all times mentioned herein, MICHAEL JACKSON was an adult singer, dancer,

25 entertainer, teacher, mentor, and coach of both MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES,

26 acting as an employee, managing agent, agent, officer, director and/or servant of such and/or was

27 under their complete control and/or supervision. MICHAEL JACKSON was hired by MJJ

28 PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES to serve as a singer, dancer, entertainer, teacher, mentor,

4 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 and coach to, in part, mentor and train minors in the entertaimnent industry. In so doing, MJJ

2 PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES held MICHAEL JACKSON out to the public, Plaintiff

3 and Plaintiffs family to be safe and of high ethical and moral repute, and to be in good standing

4 with the MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES, the State of California, and the public in

5 general. In this capacity, MICHAEL JACKSON was placed into contact with, taught, mentored,

6 coached, and advised minors regarding the entertainment industry in general (including but not

7 limited to singing, dancing, performing, choreography, song writing), personal issues, academics,

8 future employment prospects, and general emotional and psychological issues. Both MJJ

9 PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES held MICHAEL JACKSON out to the public, Plaintiff

10 and Plaintiffs parents to be a highly qualified and safe entertainer, teacher, mentor, coach, and

11 advisor who could and would assist Plaintiff and other minors in the entertainment industry, and

12 with working through personal and academic issues they faced. Inherent in this representation

50 13 was the understanding that MICHAEL JACKSON was a person of high ethical and moral ..Jg <( w Z t::N - :::> ..... LLU)~ 14 standing, selected to provide leadership, guidance, mentoring, coaching, and advisement to ces ~ m I- g;! ~ o:::<1'. z z 0:: 15 minors, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his family reasonably relied upon these representations ~-> > ...lo!!: zo <( ..- 17 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times 2~ 18 mentioned herein, Defendants and each of them and MICHAEL JACKSON were the agents,

19 representatives and/or employees of each and every other Defendant. In doing the things

20 hereinafter alleged, Defendants and each of them, and MICHAEL JACKSON, were acting within

21 the course and scope of said alternative personality, capacity, identity, agency, representation

22 and/or employment and were within the scope of their authority, whether actual or apparent.

23 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times mentioned herein,

24 Defendants and each of them and MICHAEL JACKSON were the trustees, partners, servants,

25 joint venturers, shareholders, contractors, and/or employees of each and every other Defendant,

26 and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, acting individually, through such

27 capacity and within the scope of their authority, and with the permission and consent of each and

28 Ill

5 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 every other Defendant and that said conduct was thereafter ratified by each and every other

2 Defendant, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.

3 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4 10. Plaintiff was born in Simi Valley, California on February 28, 1978. Plaintiff

5 started working in television commercials at the age of 7-8 in approximately 1984/1985. In late

6 1986/early 1987, Plaintiff was hired to work on a Pepsi commercial that featured MICHAEL

7 JACKSON in a starring role. MICHAEL JACKSON asked Plaintiff to sit on the stage and watch

8 as MICHAEL JACKSON performed for the commercial shoot.

9 11. During all relevant times alleged herein, the Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

10 on that basis alleges, that he was an employee of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ

11 VENTURES for various work performed for these entities and MICHAEL JACKSON, as his

12 compensation included, but was not limited to: travel, lodging, food, medical care, and clothing co 13 and/or wardrobe. _J g <{ UJ Z !::N :::,..- U.U)~- 14 12. Several months after the Pepsi commercial was shot, MICHAEL JACKSON wrote ocS ~ 0) I- ~ :cf 0:: <( ~ <{ z 0 15 a letter to Plaintiff on DOE 2's stationery, dated March 10, 1987. It stated: 3: <(2 ::JLL w 0:: <( I-~() U) z u.i 16 "DEAR JIMMY, ~ 0 z >-> > zo_JO .f!: <{ ..... 17 THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER. IT WAS NICE HEARING FROM YOU AGAIN! 2~ 18 I'VE BEEN WORKING ON A NEW VIDEO FOR MY ALBUM AND HAVE BEEN

19 REALLY BUSY.

20 IT WAS FUN WORKING WITH YOU ON THE PEPSI COMMERCIAL! MAYBE WE

21 CAN WORK TOGETHER AGAIN. I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU COME AND VISIT ME

22 ON THE SET SOMETIME OR WHEN I HAVE SOME FREE TIME YOU CAN COME

23 TO MY HOUSE.

24 KEEP SENDING ME LETTERS! I LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU!

25 SPEAK WITH YOU SOON, [MICHAEL JACKSON'S signature]"

26 MICHAEL JACKSON also enclosed photographs from the Pepsi commercial that they shot

27 together.

28 Ill

6 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 13. After receiving MICHAEL JACKSON's letter, Plaintiff and his family were

2 invited to dinner by MICHAEL JACKSON to MICHAEL JACKSON's home on Hayvenhurst

3 A venue in Encino, California ("Hayvenhurst house"). The invitation was made by MICHAEL

4 JACKSON through Jolie Levine, MICHAEL JACKSON's then secretary/personal assistant and

5 an employee/managing agent of MJJ PRODUCTIONS and/or MJJ VENTURES. Ms. Levine

6 later became MICHAEL JACKSON's production assistant on the "BAD" Tour, and his

7 production coordinator on the "BAD" album. Plaintiffs parents accompanied him to MICHAEL

8 . JACKSON's Hayvenhurst house for the dinner. After eating, all four of them watched the film

9 Batteries Not Included in a small home theater in MICHAEL JACKSON's Hayvenhurst house.

10 During that visit, when MICHAEL JACKSON was alone with Plaintiff, MICHAEL JACKSON

11 gave Plaintiff presents - a globe and $700. Plaintiffs parents were not aware that MICHAEL

12 JACKSON had given their son money at the time, and when they discovered it later, they asked

QO 13 MICHAEL JACKSON not to give Plaintiff money. In response to their request, MICHAEL ..J a5 <( w z !::N - ::> ...... LL(!)~ 14 JACKSON giggled and said that he could not help himself. ces ~ °' I- ~ ::!; 0:: <( ~ <( z 0 15 14. Shortly after their first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, on Thanksgiving Day, s: :a;<( ::Ju. w 0::: <( I-~(.) U) z uj 16 Plaintiff was on the telephone with MICHAEL JACKSON. Plaintiffs parents suggested that he ~ 0 z >-> > ..JOzo .f!: <( ..- 17 invite MICHAEL JACKSON to come over to their home. MICHAEL JACKSON said yes, and :lE~ 18 Plaintiff and his parents drove over to the Hayvenhurst house to pick up MICHAEL JACKSON

19 and bring him back to their home. On multiple occasions after the first visit to the Havenhurst

20 house, either Plaintiff and his family, or Plaintiff on his own, would go over to see MICHAEL

21 JACKSON at the Hayvenhurst house.

22 15. On the second occasion that Plaintiff went to the Hayvenhurst house, Plaintiff was

23 dropped off by his parents. Plaintiffs parents went to dinner while Plaintiff stayed with

24 MICHAEL JACKSON. Plaintiff and MICHAEL JACKSON drove off in MICHAEL

25 JACKSON's Mercedes and passed out $100 bills to homeless people. MICHAEL JACKSON

26 said to one homeless man, "You do know how much this is," and then handed him a $100 bill.

27 16. The third time Plaintiff visited the Hayvenhurst house he was accompanied by his

28 parents and they took a tour of MICHAEL JACKSON's recording studio which was located

7 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 there. Three of MICHAEL JACKSON's brothers were in the studio working, including Jennaine

2 Jackson, and they all exchanged a quick hello.

3 17. During his many visits to the Hayvenhurst house, Plaintiff would "hang out" with

4 the MICHAEL JACKSON in MICHAEL JACKSON's bedroom, and spend time with him in

5 MICHAEL JACKSON's dance room.

6 18. MICHAEL JACKSON began telephoning Plaintiff at home on a frequent and

7 regular basis. Their relationship had grown to a point where MICHAEL JACKSON had become

8 like a part of Plaintiff's family. MICHAEL JACKSON would call Plaintiff at home when he was

9 alone or lonely, and Plaintiff's family would drive over to the Hayvenhurst house and pick up

10 MICHAEL JACKSON and bring him back to Plaintiff's home in Simi Valley. One time Plaintiff

11 and MICHAEL JACKSON went to the park in Simi Valley. They shot some video footage there

12 that ended up in the closing credits of one of MICHAEL JACKSON's documentaries. On another i50 13 occasion, Plaintiff and MICHAEL JACKSON went to the Zales jewelry store in Simi Valley. ..J a5 <( w Z t::N - ::,'<"" LLCI)~ 14 MICHAEL JACKSON was wearing a disguise and the salesperson at the Zales store called the o6 ~ 0) I-~:'.:!; er:: <( ti <( Z O 15 police. When the police arrived and saw that it was MICHAEL JACKSON, they did not pursue s: ~:::;-> > ..JO~ Zo <( ..... 17 Havenhurst house, and they had to drive away quickly in order to evade the paparazzi. Plaintiff ::liE~ 18 and his family viewed this to be exciting- as was the entire experience of being with a "star"

19 with such celebrity status as MICHAEL JACKSON. At this time, MICHAEL JACKSON was in

20 his late 20's, Plaintiff was approximately 8-9 years old, and Plaintiff's parents were in their 40's.

21 19. In 1988, when Plaintiff was 10 years old and MICHAEL JACKSON was 29-30

22 years old, MICHAEL JACKSON invited Plaintiff to a convention in Hawaii at which the Pepsi

23 commercial they had both appeared in was being featured. Plaintiff attended the Pepsi

24 convention with MICHAEL JACKSON and appeared with him on stage. MICHAEL JACKSON

25 and/or MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES made all the arrangements and paid all the

26 expenses for Plaintiff and his mother to fly first class to Hawaii, travel by limousine to the Kahala

27 Hilton Hotel and for all of their accommodations and expenses during the convention. Plaintiff

28 and his mother travelled together with MICHAEL JACKSON's entourage. Plaintiff stayed with

8 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 his mother in her hotel room on that trip. On later trips, when Plaintiff travelled with MICHAEL

2 JACKSON, his parents would never have a room near MICHAEL JACKSON's room, and would

3 be on a different floor.

4 20. During the convention, Plaintiff spent a great deal of time with MICHAEL

5 JACKSON and got to know him well, and their friendship deepened. On this trip, MICHAEL

6 JACKSON asked if Plaintiff could sleep over in his room, but Plaintiff's mother did not permit it.

7 This was the first time MICHAEL JACKSON asked if Plaintiff could "sleep over" in his room.

8 21. While they were in Hawaii, MICHAEL JACKSON rented a helicopter to take

9 Plaintiff and his mother on a tour. Plaintiff got airsick 5-10 minutes after take-off, so they had to

10 land. MICHAEL JACKSON asked Plaintiff to stay in his room when they got back to the hotel,

11 but Plaintiff's mother said no. MICHAEL JACKSON had also rented out an amusement park for

12 everyone to visit. Plaintiff met Michael J. Fox at the convention, and for the entire time he was

ci 0 13 treated on a V.I.P. basis. ....J a5 <'( UJ Z !::N - :::,..- LL(!)~ 14 22. The Hawaii trip lasted a weekend. On the return flight to Los Angeles, California, D!!S ~ 0) I-~~ 0::: <( ~ <{ z 0 15 Plaintiff conducted a "mock" interview of MICHAEL JACKSON, using his cassette recorder. In s: ::;;;-> > ...Jo.!!:: zo <'( ..- 17 MICHAEL JACKSON provided responses, as follows: 2: ~ 18 Plaintiff: "What do you think about lying?"

19 MICHAEL JACKSON: "People make up stories about [MICHAEL

20 JACKSON -referring to himself in the third person]."

21 Plaintiff: "Do you like performing?"

22 MICHAEL JACKSON: "Favorite things are writing songs, performing, and

23 being with Jimmy [Plaintiff]." 24

25 Plaintiff: "Any new plans?"

26 MICHAEL JACKSON: "Smooth Criminal, short film, new Pepsi

27 commercial, best Pepsi commercial was the one with Jimmy

28 [Plaintiff] because he had 'heart,' best thing about Hawaii was

9 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 spending time with Jimmy [Plaintiff], love [Plaintiffs] family and

2 want to spend time with them."

3 During this interview, MICHAEL JACKSON referred to Plaintiff by the nickname "Rubba."

4 This was a nickname that MICHAEL JACKSON used to refer to Plaintiff early on in their

5 relationship, and one that MICHAEL JACKSON used to refer to other children, short for "rubber

6 head".

7 23. In 1988, Plaintiff first started dancing with MICHAEL JACKSON. MICHAEL

8 JACKSON brought Plaintiff to his private dance studio and let Plaintiff watch him rehearse.

9 MICHAEL JACKSON told Plaintiff that he was the only person who was allowed to watch him

10 rehearse. MICHAEL JACKSON would rehearse Yz to lhour every Sunday it was his ritual. If

11 Plaintiff was around, he would be invited to attend the rehearsals to watch, and as time

12 progressed, MICHAEL JACKSON allowed Plaintiff to dance with him. Even though Plaintiff

0 13 ci_.g did not have formal dance training, MICHAEL JACKSON would coach and teach him, and <( UJ z t::N - :::> ..... LL U) ~ 14 MICHAEL JACKSON told Plaintiff that he had rhythm. o6 : 0) I- ~ :'!: cr::- > > ...Izo a.!!: <( ..... 17 MICHAEL JACKSON ended up sleeping in Plaintiffs bedroom with him on a regular basis, 2: ~ 18 which Plaintiffs parents lmew. Plaintiff and MICHAEL JACKSON would also sometimes pitch

19 a tent in the living room and sleep in there. Plaintiff observed MICHAEL JACKSON's nightly

20 regimen before going to sleep - taping his nose using white bandage tape, to form a shell to cover

21 his nose. MICHAEL JACKSON also used the empty bedroom of Plaintiffs older brother to

22 meditate.

23 25. On March 11, 1988, Plaintiff and his mother accompanied MICHAEL JACKSON

24 as his guests to attend a performance of The Phantom of the Opera on Broadway, and both before

25 and after the perfonnance they all spent time together with Liza Minnelli. After the show, they all

26 went backstage to meet the stars of the show, including Michael Crawford. Jolie Levine again

27 made all the arrangements through MJJ PRODUCTIONS and/or MJJ VENTURES for them to

28 fly to New York and MICHAEL JACKSON and/or MJJ PRODUCTIONS/MJJ VENTURES paid

10 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 for all of their expenses for the trip. Plaintiff and his mother stayed at the Trump Tower in

2 Manhattan for the weekend. They went to F AO Schwartz, the famous toy store, in addition to

3 attending with him the performance of The Phantom of the Opera. Plaintiff stayed in his mother's

4 hotel room. Again MICHAEL JACKSON asked for Plaintiff to stay in MICHAEL JACKSON's

5 room with him, but Plaintiffs mother said no. But as soon as Plaintiff woke up in the morning, he

6 would go to the MICHAEL JACKSON's room and stay there with him.

7 26. In or about 1988, MICHAEL JACKSON invited Plaintiff to meet him in

8 Pensacola, Florida, where MICHAEL JACKSON and his band were rehearsing. MICHAEL

9 JACKSON and MJJ PRODUCTIONS and/or MJJ VENTURES arranged for Plaintiff and his

10 parents to travel to Florida, and stay in one of the houses that MICHAEL JACKSON and MJJ

11 PRODUCTIONS and/or MJJ VENTURES had rented there. Plaintiff stayed with MICHAEL

12 JACKSON in one house, and Plaintiffs parents stayed in one of the other houses. This was the oo 13 first time that Plaintiff stayed with MICHAEL JACKSON on a trip. MICHAEL JACKSON also _J &5 ~w Z !:;:N - ::>..- LI.CJ)~ 14 took Plaintiff and his parents for a side visit to Disney World. oes ~ m I- ~ :;!; 0::: <( ~ 4:zo 15 27. The time that Plaintiff and MICHAEL JACKSON spent together in 1988 increased 3: 2<( ::JLJ.. w 0:: <( I-~ 0 Cl) z u.i 16 significantly. MICHAEL JACKSON encouraged Plaintiff to dress like him and grow his hair - 0 z >- > > _JO~ <..-zo 17 long like MICHAEL JACKSON's. MICHAEL JACKSON had coaxed Plaintiff to become a 2~ 18 "miniature version" of MICHAEL JACKSON. Plaintiff did. MICHAEL JACKSON gave

19 Plaintiff many gifts of his clothing, some of which remain in Plaintiffs possession to this day.

20 The "Thriller" jacket in which MICHAEL JACKSON he had famously perfonned, was given

21 previously to Plaintiff but MICHAEL JACKSON later took it back. MICHAEL JACKSON had

22 become part of Plaintiffs family circle. However, MICHAEL JACKSON never introduced

23 Plaintiff or Plaintiffs family to his own - Plaintiff saw Jermaine Jackson once at the Hayvenhurst

24 house, and met Janet Jackson once when Plaintiff spent a weekend at N everland when Janet

25 Jackson and her husband, Renee, were also there.

26 28. In the early part of 1988, MICHAEL JACKSON invited Plaintiff to join him on

27 the "Bad" Tour. Plaintiff spent six (6) months on the "Bad" Tour with MICHAEL JACKSON,

28 accompanied by his mother. Plaintiff joined MICHAEL JACKSON for the second leg of the

11 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 "Bad" Tour in June (Europe) and stayed on the tour through December (where it concluded in

2 Japan). During that 6 month period, Plaintiff returned to the U.S. to go back to school for several

3 months. For the Japan portion of the tour, Plaintiff received course and homework from his

4 school in Simi Valley so that he could keep up with his studies.

5 29. On the tour, Plaintiff performed nightly with MICHAEL JACKSON on stage. He

6 was not paid for his services, but MICHAEL JACKSON and MJJ PRODUCTIONS organized

7 and paid for all hotel and other accommodations; made and paid for all travel arrangements for

8 Plaintiff and his mother (and also for Plaintiff's father who joined the family for certain portions

9 of the tour); and paid for all food, entertainment and shopping sprees for Plaintiff and his parents.

10 Jolie Levine was the point person for MICHAEL JACKSON and MJJ PRODUCTIONS to make

11 all the arrangements.

12 30. The first portion of the "Bad" Tour that Plaintiff attended was in Paris, France in

QO 13 approximately June 25-29, 1988. A replica of MICHAEL JACKSON's "Bad" Tour outfit was ..J~ <( w Z !;::N - :::,...- LI.Cl)~ 14 specially made by Michael Bush for Plaintiff to wear when he perfonned onstc;1ge with ~ ~ 0) I- ~ :;!; er:<( z z 0:: 15 MICHAEL JACKSON and for publicity events. During the "Bad" Tour, Plaintiff's parents ~ dZ~ ::J w 0:: <{ I-~() Cl) z ui 16 would go out to see tourist attractions - sometimes alone, and sometimes with other members of ~ 0 z >-> 5 ..Jzo o.9: <( ...- 17 MICHAEL JACKSON's entourage and/or other employees of MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ :2E~ 18 VENTURES. Plaintiff could not go, because ifhe went out in public, he would be hounded by

19 the paparazzi and fans because of his role on the tour with MICHAEL JACKSON. No children

20 participated on the "Bad" Tour other than Plaintiff.

21 31. The first incident of sexual abuse occurred during the Paris portion of the "Bad"

22 Tour in June 25-29, 1988. At the time, MICHAEL JACKSON was 29 years old and Plaintiff was

23 10 years old. MICHAEL JACKSON introduced Plaintiff to masturbation by telling him that

24 everyone does it. MICHAEL JACKSON and Plaintiff were together in MICHAEL JACKSON's

25 room at the Hotel de Crillon in Paris. It was dark in the room. MICHAEL JACKSON told

26 Plaintiff that he was going to change Plaintiff's life by showing him how to masturbate.

27 MICHAEL JACKSON showed Plaintiff how to masturbate himself by first demonstrating on

28 himself, and then making Plaintiff try after that. Then, together, they masturbated to the point

12 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAlNT 1 where Plaintiffs penis swelled up. MICHAEL JACKSON guided Plaintiff in putting his penis

2 into a glass of wann water so the swelling would go down and allow him to urinate. MICHAEL

3 JACKSON told Plaintiff that masturbation was something that "everyone does." Later on,

4 MICHAEL JACKSON told Plaintiff when other sexual acts were involved, it was a way of

5 "showing love." During the time that Plaintiff was in contact with MICHAEL JACKSON, MJJ

6 PRODUCTIONS' managing agents and employees frequently coordinated the Plaintiffs travel,

7 lodging, arrangements, and appearances with MICHAEL JACKSON, which occurred, at least in

8 part, during the "Bad" tour. Furthermore, Ms. The managing agents and employees of MJJ

9 PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES performed the same tasks for Plaintiffs mother, in

10 coordinating her travel, lodging and other arrangements, such that the Plaintiff could be secluded

11 with MICHAEL JACKSON. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that

12 these managing agents and employees were acting on behalf of MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ

QO 13 VENTURES, as "madams" or "procurers" of child sexual abuse victims for MICHAEL ...Ja5 <( w Z !:::N - :::, ...... u. (/) ~ 14 JACKSON. oc?S ~ 0) I- ~ :';!; 0:::: ~ ~ <( z 0 15 32. At or around the time of the first incident of sexual abuse, Plaintiff began sleeping ~- > > ..Jo~zo <( ...... 17 Tour. 2~ 18 33. On another occasion during the "Bad" Tour in 1988, MICHAEL JACKSON

19 kissed Plaintiffs genitals. On this and subsequent occasions, MICHAEL JACKSON had Plaintiff

20 rub and suck MICHAEL JACKSON's nipples while he [MICHAEL JACKSON] masturbated

21 himself. MICHAEL JACKSON liked to have Plaintiffbend over on all fours and then MICHAEL

22 JACKSON would grab Plaintiffs butt cheeks and spread them open with one hand, and

23 masturbate himself with the other. MICHAEL JACKSON referred to this activity as "selling me

24 some," because MICHAEL JACKSON would give Plaintiff jewelry after he did this, as a

25 "reward." Plaintiff still has some of the jewelry MICHAEL JACKSON gave to him after he

26 abused him, which included a necklace with a medallion bearing MICHAEL JACKSON's face.

27 34. During the "Bad" Tour, MICHAEL JACKSON taught Plaintiff code words to use

28 so that other people would not know what they were talking about when they were referring to

13 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 their sexual activities, including the phrase: "bright light, brick city" which referred to a "hard

2 on," named for the motion picture Bright Lights, Big City. If Plaintiff and MICHAEL JACKSON

3 were holding hands, MICHAEL JACKSON would also scratch the inside of Plaintiffs hand with

4 one of his fingers---that was a sexual cue.

5 35. The "Bad" Tour ended in 1988 after Christmas in Japan. MICHAEL JACKSON

6 then flew Plaintiff to New York to spend time alone with him after MICHAEL JACKSON

7 performed at the Grammy's in February 1989. Plaintiff travelled by himself. MICHAEL

8 JACKSON would occasionally arrange through MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES to

9 have Plaintiff flown to see him at whatever location he was performing. During those visits,

10 Plaintiff would sleep with MICHAEL JACKSON in his hotel room, and ongoing sexual abuse

11 would occur.

12 36. From 1988 when the sexual abuse first began through 1992, MICHAEL

13 co,_1g JACKSON engaged in ongoing sexual abuse of Plaintiff. MICHAEL JACKSON would <1: w Z t: N - ::> ..... u.. U) g::i 14 repeatedly instruct Plaintiff to be confident and to deny everything if ever asked about the abuse. ocS ~ 0) I- g! :;!; er::<( z z 0:: 15 MICHAEL JACKSON told him to be quiet about it and not tell anyone, even his parents, about ~ :;;E:::;-1'. ~ w 0:: q'. I-~(.) Cl) z ui 16 their relationship. MICHAEL JACKSON told Plaintiff that he did not have to answer questions ~ 0 z >-> > -loE:;:zo <1: ..... 17 about what they did; that he should be vague and not give real answers to questions; and that if :; ~ 18 the police ever told Plaintiff that MICHAEL JACKSON had "already confessed," they were lying

19 and trying to trick Plaintiff. MICHAEL JACKSON would repeat over and over again to Plaintiff

20 that their participation in sexual acts together was Plaintiffs idea. He would drill that into

21 Plaintiff over and over again throughout their relationship. MICHAEL JACKSON would tell

22 Plaintiff that it was okay to lie to other people, because nothing would happen if you lied.

23 37. MICHAEL JACKSON frequently told Plaintiff that he would need to get married

24 to protect his public perception. MICHAEL JACKSON confessed to Plaintiff that his own father,

25 Joseph Jackson, beat him when he was growing up ifhe "messed up" or did not rehearse, and that

26 Plaintiff was now giving MICHAEL JACKSON the childhood he never had.

27 38. By the time Plaintiffs parents had a sex education discussion with him, he had

28 already been abused by MICHAEL JACKSON. Over time, the sexual abuse gradually escalated

14 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 and became a "normal" part of the relationship Plaintiff had with MICHAEL JACKSON. The

2 sexual abuse continued in the same pattern of activity, with MICHAEL JACKSON adding new

3 components to the abuse-for example, he had Plaintiff rub MICHAEL JACKSON's nipples

4 while MICHAEL JACKSON masturbated himself. On another occasion, MICHAEL JACKSON

5 inserted his finger into Plaintiffs anus. Plaintiff told MICHAEL JACKSON not to do it, so he

6 stopped, although MICHAEL JACKSON did it again, later on.

7 39. Plaintiff was confused about his sexuality, and wondered ifhe was gay. He did

8 not think he was gay because he experienced feelings of having a "crush" on Sheryl Crow, who at

9 the time was working as a back-up singer for MICHAEL JACKSON. MICHAEL JACKSON

10 was jealous of Plaintiffs "crush" on Sheryl Crow, and told him that he should not like her.

11 MICHAEL JACKSON showed Plaintiff photographs of Sheryl Crow without her make-up on in

12 an attempt to dissuade him from finding her attractive. MICHAEL JACKSON was jealous of

i5 0 13 Plaintiffs attraction to females and any relationships with females that he had. MICHAEL ....J~ <( UJ Z !::N -:, .... LL (I) g:;: 14 JACKSON consistently talked about women in a negative manner, and would point out to o6 ~ O> I-~:;!; 0::: <( ~ <( z 0 15 Plaintiff what he considered to be their physical flaws. MICHAEL JACKSON told Plaintiff that ~~~ w 0::: <( I-~() en z w 16 women were smart, conniving and not to be trusted. - 0 z >-> > ....lo.!!: zo <( .... 17 40. When MICHAEL JACKSON purchased the Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara :!=~ 18 County in 1988, Plaintiff was the first guest to stay overnight. At that time, there was no large

19 "Neverland Ranch" sign, only the main house, pool and a trampoline. MICHAEL JACKSON

20 told Plaintiff when he bought it that it was Plaintiffs "home." Whenever Plaintiff visited

21 Neverland, he slept in MICHAEL JACKSON's bedroom. MICHAEL JACKSON and Plaintiff

22 would "mess up" the upstairs bedroom to make it look as though Plaintiff had slept there, when in

23 actuality he stayed with MICHAEL JACKSON in his bed.

24 41. MICHAEL JACKSON eventually installed chimes in the hallway to his bedroom

25 so that he could hear and be warned when people approached. MICHAEL JACKSON later

26 installed video cameras.

27 42. MICHAEL JACKSON had a secret closet in his bedroom at Neverland which

28 required a secret passcode to open. MICHAEL JACKSON kept jewelry inside the closet, and

15 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 would often abuse Plaintiff there. There was another closet on the other side of his bedroom

2 which was larger, and MICHAEL JACKSON would lay down a blanket in there so that there was

3 more room to engage in sexual activities with Plaintiff. MICHAEL JACKSON's bedroom was

4 located next to the library, and had a private bathroom to the right.

5 43. · MICHAEL JACKSON had the telephones at Neverland tapped so that he could

6 listen to incoming and outgoing calls. On one occasion, MICHAEL JACKSON had Plaintiff

7 secretly listen in on a telephone call between Plaintiffs mother and aunt where Plaintiffs mother

8 had said something negative about Plaintiffs father. After Plaintiff listened to the call,

9 MICHAEL JACKSON stated: "look how mean women are."

10 44. MICHAEL JACKSON also had all of the telephones in the guest houses at

11 Neverland tapped. It was common practice for MICHAEL JACKSON and Plaintiff to listen in

12 on telephone calls at Neverland.

13 ....Jgi30 45. On several occasions, Plaintiff took his best friend from school to visit Neverland. <:( w t: N -::::>..-z LLU)~ 14 During one of his visits, they had a slumber party and game-type activities. MICHAEL ca ~ m I- ~ :;!; 0::: <{ ~ <:(ZQ 15 JACKSON and Plaintiff would "sneak off' to be alone and where sexual abuse would occur, but :s: -> > ..Jo$ zo <:( .... 17 always careful when other people were around. 2: ~ 18 46. Mariano Quindoy ( an MJJ PRODUCTIONS' employee and Estate Manager at

19 Neverland from May 1989 to April 1990) stated that he had witnessed several incidences of

20 suspicious activity between MICHAEL JACKSON and Plaintiff at Neverland, including finding

21 MICHAEL JACKSON's and Plaintiffs underwear lying next to MICHAEL JACKSON's bed,

22 and seeing MICHAEL JACKSON put his hand down the front of Plaintiffs shorts while the two

23 were bathing together in a Jacuzzi. Mr. Quindoy stated that there was gossip amongst the

24 Neverland staff that MICHAEL JACKSON was "having an affair" with Plaintiff and that they

25 were sleeping together. Mr. Quindoy also stated that Norma Staikos told Mr. Quindoy and his

26 wife never to leave children alone in a room with MICHAEL JACKSON.

27 47. Blanca Francia (MICHAEL JACKSON's personal maid and an MJJ

28 PRODUCTIONS' employee) witnessed Ms. Staikos arrange meetings between MICHAEL

16 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 JACKSON and children and their families. Ms. Francia stated that Ms. Staikos would arrange for

2 a limousine to pick up Plaintiff and other children and take them to "The Hideout" to see

3 MICHAEL JACKSON.

4 48. Orietta Murdock (an assistant to both Ms. Staikos and Ms. Staikos' predecessor

5 Bill Bray at MJJ PRODUCTIONS) first heard about MICHAEL JACKSON's reputation

6 regarding children soon after she began working for MJJ PRODUCTIONS in September 1989.

7 Ms. Murdock stated that while she was being given a tour ofNeverland by Ms. Staikos, Ms.

8 Staikos stopped near the door to MICHAEL JACKSON's room and told Ms. Murdock to never

9 leave her son alone with MICHAEL JACKSON.

10 49. Ms. Staikos exercised a significant degree of control over MICHAEL JACKSON's

11 affairs in her capacity as the Executive Director of MJJ PRODUCTIONS. Ms. Murdock stated

12 that she was terminated by Ms. Staikos for appealing to MICHAEL JACKSON regarding a

ci 0 13 request for a raise which Ms. Staikos had denied, and that MICHAEL JACKSON later admitted ...I~ <{ w z !::~ u::~~ 14 to Ms. Murdock that Ms. Staikos had forced MICHAEL JACKSON to agree to the termination 1:6 ~ 0) I- ~ ~ 0:: <{ & 15 against his wishes. :s:~~<{ Z O UJ 0:: <( I-~() en z ui 16 50. When Plaintiff was in the fourth grade, he had a "girlfriend." When MICHAEL ~ 0 z >- > 5 ...Izo o.!f <{ ...... 17 JACKSON found out, he told Plaintiff that he could only have a relationship with him. 2~ 18 MICHAEL JACKSON called it a "faux committed relationship" that had to be kept secret.

19 51. MICHAEL JACKSON would run "drills" regularly with Plaintiff and make

20 Plaintiff practice putting on his clothes very fast and practice running away quietly so people

21 would not hear him.

22 52. MICHAEL JACKSON engaged in an ongoing campaign to instill fear in Plaintiff

23 - he repeatedly told Plaintiff that if anyone found out about what they were doing, MICHAEL

24 JACKSON's and Plaintiffs "futures would be over." MICHAEL JACKSON reminded Plaintiff

25 of this on a constant basis.

26 53. MICHAEL JACKSON was paranoid about what Plaintiff might tell other people.

27 MICHAEL JACKSON would constantly grill Plaintiff to tell him exactly what was said in

28 conversations he had with other people. On one occasion, MICHAEL JACKSON asked Plaintiff

17 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 what was said in a conversation between Plaintiff and a female limousine driver that MICHAEL

2 JACKSON would regularly send to pick up Plaintiff for visits. When MICHAEL JACKSON

3 learned that she had asked him questions about MICHAEL JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON

4 terminated her employment. After that, MICHAEL JACKSON started driving over to Plaintiffs

5 house himself to pick him up and bring him back for visits.

6 54. As time progressed, MICHAEL JACKSON became more and more possessive of

7 Plaintiff and escalated the nature of their relationship and the frequency of the sexual abuse. In

8 addition to MICHAEL JACKSON's nickname for Plaintiff of "Rubba," MICHAEL JACKSON

9 expanded their secret language and created sexual "codes." MICHAEL JACKSON referred to

10 semen as "duck butter." MICHAEL JACKSON would scratch the inside of Plaintiffs palm as a

11 sexual cue. MICHAEL JACKSON performed a fake "marriage" with Plaintiff complete with a

12 wedding ring and a signed document to pretend that they got married. MICHAEL JACKSON

iS 0 13 would sometimes be a "jokester" with Plaintiff, saying that people were taking pictures of them ..Jg .:i: w Z !::N - ::)..- U.CJ)~ 14 while they were engaging in sexual activity, and had a light outside of his bedroom window at c6 ~ 0) I- ~ ~ o::-> > ...Jzo 0~

19 55. MICHAEL JACKSON trained Plaintiff to exchange declarations oflove with him

20 it became a regular occurrence for them to say that they loved one another all of the time they

21 were physically together, and over the many telephone calls they had. Once they became close,

22 MICHAEL JACKSON encouraged Plaintiff to stay away from an acting career and the spotlight.

23 Plaintiff developed a significant emotional attachment to MICHAEL JACKSON; MICHAEL

24 JACKSON always told Plaintiff that he would take care of him. Plaintiff began to wish that

25 MICHAEL JACKSON were his father.

26 56. MICHAEL JACKSON engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff hundreds of times -

27 on tour, at Plaintiffs home, at MICHAEL JACKSON's apartment/condominium on Wilshire 28

18 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Boulevard in Westwood, at MICHAEL JACKSON's Century City condominium which was

2 nicknamed "The Hideout," and at Neverland.

3 57. In 1990-1991, Plaintiff spent time with MICHAEL JACKSON at his

4 apartment/condominium in Westwood and later at "The Hideout" in Century City, California.

5 During this timeframe, Plaintiff was 12-13 years old.

6 58. Plaintiffbecame a regular companion of MICHAEL JACKSON. MICHAEL

7 JACKSON took Plaintiff on shopping excursions with him, including a shopping spree at The

8 Sharper Image store in Studio City. MICHAEL JACKSON frequently took Plaintiff shopping at

9 stores on Ventura Boulevard and on Hollywood Boulevard, including a magic shop and costume

10 store.

11 59. MICHAEL JACKSON possessed many recording devices and high-tech briefcases

12 equipped with recording devices. Plaintiff thought of them as high-tech "kids' toys," but

13 MICHAEL JACKSON used them in a manner that created a sense of paranoia of other people. ..Jgco <( w z !::N - :::> ..... LLCI)~ 14 60. At or about the time Plaintiff turned 12, a transition period began where ol:S ~ 0) I- ~ :.'f 0::: <( z z 0:: 15 MICHAEL JACKSON began to focus his attention on a younger boy, Brett Barnes ("Brett"). ~ ~dr ::J w 0:: <( I-~() Cl) z uf 16 Get-togethers at The Hideout became more frequent, with other young boys that MICHAEL - 0 z >- > > ..Jo.!!: zo <( .... 17 JACKSON had invited in attendance. When MICHAEL JACKSON was alone with Plaintiff at :E ~ 18 The Hideout, MICHAEL JACKSON served pink wine to him to drink, which was sweet, and

19 together they would watch porn films. Some of the porn films were heterosexual in nature as

20 were the pornographic books that MICHAEL JACKSON showed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was told

21 by MICHAEL JACKSON that these books were "foreign" books. MICHAEL JACKSON also

22 showed Plaintiff movies in which children were masturbating, and told him that they were "not

23 really porn." The movies that MICHAEL JACKSON referred to as "porn" involved adult sexual

24 activities, whereas the films where children engaged in sexual activities were "not porn".

25 61. When Plaintiff started puberty at age 12, MICHAEL JACKSON began to prepare

26 Plaintiff for separation -telling him that he would "have other friends." Plaintiff was upset

27 hearing this and tried to preserve his relationship with MICHAEL JACKSON by being extra nice

28 and trying to befriend a younger boy with whom MICHAEL JACKSON began to spend more

19 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 time. Plaintiff became inwardly jealous because of the time and attention MICHAEL JACKSON

2 began devoting to him instead of Plaintiff.

3 62. On one of the weekends that Plaintiff spent with the boy and MICHAEL

4 JACKSON at The Hideout, Plaintiff began to feel as though he "was on the outs" with

5 MICHAEL JACKSON. The MICHAEL JACKSON had spent the night in his bedroom with the

6 boy instead of with Plaintiff, and Plaintiff spent the night on the couch. Plaintiff experienced

7 feelings of jealously as a result of being replaced by the boy. This was part and parcel of

8 MICHAEL JACKSON's continual grooming and manipulation of Plaintiff and others during the

9 sexual abuse.

10 63. As Plaintiff neared puberty, MICHAEL JACKSON started grooming him for

11 separation. This grooming period spanned several months. MICHAEL JACKSON told the

12 Plaintiff that he would be "seeing [the MICHAEL JACKSON] with other people" but that they

QO 13 would continue on together "later on." When Plaintiff fully reached puberty, MICHAEL ..Jg <( w Z !::N ::, ...... -ll.U)~ 14 JACKSON began spending his time with Brett instead of with Plaintiff, and MICHAEL ol:j ~ 0) I- ~ ~ o:::<( ~ <( z 0 15 JACKSON's sexual abuse of Plaintiff finally stopped. -> > ..JOzo .EE <( ...... 17 MICHAEL JACKSON less frequently. MICHAEL JACKSON remained active in his life, a: ~ 18 however, and paid for the Plaintiff to direct several movies in high school. MICHAEL JACKSON

19 turned Plaintiffs focus away from scholastics and towards becoming a director. MICHAEL

20 JACKSON hired a professor from NYU to teach Plaintiff on the weekends how to direct films.

21 MICHAEL JACKSON told Plaintiff that "one day, we're going to make movies together." He

22 also told Plaintiff to "study hard and be extraordinary" and that "[the MICHAEL JACKSON] will

23 be there to get [the Plaintiff's] foot in the door" of the entertainment industry and motion picture

24 business. MICHAEL JACKSON and/or MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES arranged

25 and paid for John Lugar to spearhead Plaintiff's filmmaking and planning; hired Gretchen

26 Sommerfeld to teach directing to Plaintiff; and also hired Craig Thorton to teach script writing to

27 Plaintiff. MICHAEL JACKSON arranged for Ms. Sommerfeld and Mr. Thorton to go to

28 Plaintiff's house on weekends to teach him about the filmmaking process.

20 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 65. MICHAEL JACKSON told Plaintiffs parents that he did not need to go to

2 college, and convinced them to remove Plaintiff from his Advanced Placement ("AP") courses.

3 At the time, Plaintiff was very knowledgeable and skilled in mathematics. Nevertheless, he was

4 taken out of his AP classes, and instead re-focused on directing by MICHAEL JACKSON.

5 Because Plaintiffs own parents had not attended college, they were ill-equipped to guide their

6 son in his scholastic endeavors, and were persuaded by MICHAEL JACKSON to steer Plaintiff

7 away from school and into directing.

8 66. In conversations with the MICHAEL JACKSON about dropping AP classes,

9 Plaintiffs mother stated that her son would end up doing what the MICHAEL JACKSON was

10 doing in his career, to which MICHAEL JACKSON agreed, stating that day would come, and

11 when Plaintiff became a filmmaker, there would be "a line around the block" to see him.

12 MICHAEL JACKSON told Plaintiff to de-prioritize school, focus on movie-making, and not to

ci 0 13 worry because MICHAEL JACKSON could get Plaintiff into college ifhe still wanted to go. ..Jg <( w Z != N - :::>'<""' U.CI)~ 14 67. In 1992-1993, the MICHAEL JACKSON and MJJ PRODUCTIONS arranged for cc5 ~ CJ) I- ~ ~ o:::~ ~ <( z 0 15 the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff and his parents to take several trips. In 1992, Plaintiff and his parents <{ u.. :s: :a: ::J w 0:: <{ I-~(.) en z w 16 went to Boston to attend a Deepak Chopra meditation retreat. Plaintiff and his family used the ~ 0 z >-> > ..Jo~ zo 17 <( T"' cover name "Andrews" when travelling to protect their identities from the media. In 1993, 2~ 18 Plaintiff went alone to Washington, D.C. and MICHAEL JACKSON arranged for the Plaintiff to

19 visit the White House. Then, on the second leg of that trip to Chicago, when MICHAEL

20 JACKSON was doing the "Jam" video shoot, other boys were there, including Wade Robson,

21 who Plaintiff met for the first time. Plaintiff was sent home early from the trip.

22 68. In 1993, Plaintiff provided a witness statement to the police in connection with the

23 criminal investigation of Jordan Chandler's allegations against MICHAEL JACKSON.

24 MICHAEL JACKSON told Plaintiff and his parents that the claims were complete extortion on

25 the part of the Chandler family. Plaintiffs parents believed MICHAEL JACKSON, and were

26 convinced that he could do no wrong. Plaintiff met with one of MICHAEL JACKSON's lawyers

27 at his office and rehearsed questions and testimony with him, at MICHAEL JACKSON' s request

28 and insistence.

21 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 69. In 1994, Plaintiff worked as an intern/shadow director in Budapest, Hungary for

2 MICHAEL JACKSON's "H!Story" promo video. Again, Plaintiff travelled and worked under the

3 cover name "Jimmy Andrews" to protect his identity. Plaintiff appeared as "Jimmy Andrews" on

4 the call sheets for the "H!Story" promo video and was employed as a production assistant.

5 Plaintiff's mother accompanied him on the trip to Budapest, which lasted one-two weeks.

6 MICHAEL JACKSON and MJJ PRODUCTIONS arranged and paid for the travel and

7 accommodations.

8 70. In 1995, Plaintiff was employed by the MICHAEL JACKSON and/or MJJ

9 PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES as an intern/shadow director for MICHAEL

10 JACKSON's "Earthsong" video. Again, Plaintiff appeared on the call sheets for this video, which

11 was filmed in New Jersey. Plaintiff was a wardrobe double on this shoot, and also appears as a

12 hand double in the video for MICHAEL JACKSON.

0 13 i5.... g 71. In the years following 1995, after Plaintiff reached the age of 17, his relationship <( w Z t: N - ::::>..- u. U) ~ 14 with MICHAEL JACKSON tapered off. In 1997, Plaintiff enrolled in Moorpark Community oes ~ °' I- ~ ::!; a:: <( ~ <( z 0 15 College in an attempt to get good enough grades to enable him to seek admission to USC. That ~~~ UJ 0:: <( I-~ 0 Cl) z u.i 16 never came to fruition. Plaintiff never got the university education that he wanted; instead, his - 0 z >-> > ...IO~zo <( ..- 17 education had been derailed by MICHAEL JACKSON's persuasion of him and his parents that ::E~ 18 college was a waste of time and that Plaintiff's future was in film direction.

19 72. During the time that Plaintiff was attending Moorpark Community College, he

20 began having panic attacks. One occurred during a Spanish tutoring session. Plaintiff had no idea

21 what was wrong with him. To stabilize his panic, he would excuse himself from wherever he was

22 when he began to experience the attacks, and walk around until he could calm down enough to re

23 join whatever he had been doing.

24 73. In 2005, MICHAEL JACKSON contacted Plaintiff, and asked him to testify on his

25 behalf in the criminal trial against MICHAEL JACKSON in Santa Barbara for criminal sexual

26 abuse. Plaintiff was approximately 27 years old at the time. MICHAEL JACKSON started out the

27 telephone call by saying that he wanted to help Plaintiff with his music and directing. He then

28 asked Plaintiff to testify at trial on his behalf. When Plaintiff said no to the request, MICHAEL

22 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 JACKSON got angry and threatened him. Plaintiff told MICHAEL JACKSON never to call him

2 again, and that he wanted a nonnal life. MICHAEL JACKSON got very angry and continued to

3 threaten Plaintiff, telling him that he had the best lawyers in the world and that they would get

4 Plaintiff for perjury from the 1993 Chandler investigation. Plaintiff had never experienced

5 MICHAEL JACKSON being so angry. Plaintiff was also panicked about MICHAEL JACKSON

6 talking to his mother---fearful that she would find out about his abuse by MICHAEL JACKSON

7 and be threatened by MICHAEL JACKSON's lawyers.

8 74. A few days after this telephone conversation, MICHAEL JACKSON called

9 Plaintiff ·s mother to try to get her to convince Plaintiff to testify on his behalf at the criminal trial.

10 MICHAEL JACKSON also wanted both of Plaintiffs parents to testify on his behalf. One to two

11 days prior to MICHAEL JACKSON's call to his mother, Plaintiff had told his mother about the

12 call he had received from MICHAEL JACKSON and that he had declined to testify at the oo 13 criminal trial. Plaintiff talked to her about the call and told his mother that MICHAEL ..Jg <( w z !::N - :, .,... u.. C/) ~ 14 JACKSON was a "bad man," but was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the very c6 ~ 0) I- ~ ::f O:::-> > ..JO~zo <(.,... 17 would find out that he had told his mother. When MICHAEL JACKSON called Plaintiffs ~~ 18 mother, she pretended that she was not aware of MICHAEL JACKSON's earlier threatening call

19 to her son, or about the abuse.

20 75. MICHAEL JACKSON's lawyers, together with Evvy Tavasci, MICHAEL

21 JACKSON's executive personal secretary and an employee of MJJ PRODUCTIONS, contacted

22 Plaintiff and told him that he needed to testify and deny anything that the cooks at Neverland said

23 that they saw happen between Plaintiff and MICHAEL JACKSON. Plaintiff told them that he did

24 not want any further involvement with MICHAEL JACKSON.

25 76. After the call with MICHAEL JACKSON's lawyers and Ms. Tavasci, MICHAEL

26 JACKSON called Plaintiff again. This call was towards the end of the criminal trial. MICHAEL

27 JACKSON told Plaintiff that that he "was sorry for not being there for [the Plaintiff]." The words

28 that MICHAEL JACKSON used and the tone of his voice appeared to Plaintiff to be rehearsed, as

23 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 if the call were being tape recorded. Plaintiff feared that this was a possibility, as he knew from

2 the past that MICHAEL JACKSON often taped telephone calls on a regular basis. Plaintiff

3 wanted to get off the telephone call as quickly as possible, as the very sound of MICHAEL

4 JACKSON's voice made him very uncomfortable and put him into a panic mode. MICHAEL

5 JACKSON continued to pressure Plaintiff to testify and told him that Gavin Arviso (the victim in

6 the criminal prosecution) was just trying to get money. Plaintiff told MICHAEL JACKSON not

7 to call or try to talk to him ever again, and then ended the call.

8 77. On June 25, 2009, MICHAEL JACKSON died.

9 78. Upon learning of his death, Plaintiff felt sad because he realized he would never

10 have the opportunity for a normal relationship with MICHAEL JACKSON, and that his

11 experiences with MICHAEL JACKSON would never be resolved.

12 79. Following his death, Plaintiff heard in news reports that MICHAEL JACKSON's

13 entertainment lawyer, named "Branca," would be managing MICHAEL JACKSON's business .....Jgoo <( UJ z t::N - :) ...... LL U) ~ 14 affairs. Plaintiff knew he was a lawyer for MICHAEL JACKSON and his companies, but had oc?:I ~ 0) I- ~ ::f 0::: <( ~ <( z 0 15 never met him. <( u. :s: ~ ::J w ~ <( I-~ 0 Cl)zw 16 80. After the birth of his son, in late 2010, Plaintiff began to worry that he himself ~ 0 z >- > > ...Jo.!!: zo <( ...... 17 would have pedophilic urges. Plaintiff started to see how innocent children really were. Plaintiff 2: ~ 18 had married a woman he worked with in 2007. He had never told her about his sexual abuse.

19 During his wife's pregnancy, Plaintiff had sought help from a doctor who prescribed Xanax to

20 help with his anxiety. Plaintiff did not discuss the abuse with the doctor, nor did he equate his

21 anxiety with the abuse. Plaintiff had coped with the abuse for many years by compartmentalizing

22 what had happened during his relationship with MICHAEL JACKSON.

23 81. Shortly after May 1, 2013, Plaintiff saw on the news that Wade Robson ("Wade"),

24 who he had met in 1993, had filed a lawsuit against MICHAEL JACKSON for claims of

25 childhood sexual abuse. After learning that Wade had made public the sexual abuse that he had

26 suffered at the hands of MICHAEL JACKSON, Plaintiffs feelings of panic and anxiety

27 heightened, and he thought that he might need help. By this time, Plaintiff now also had a

24 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 newborn baby daughter, and his fears increased about his own children and what could happen to

2 them.

3 82. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering, or

4 any of the other psychological injuries or illnesses were actually the result of the sexual abuse by

5 MICHAEL JACKSON. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his

6 entire life holding on to MICHAEL JACKSON's words that talking about what happened

7 between them "would wreck [their] lives."Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, on May 20, 2013.

8 He was finally able to discuss the abuse during his treatment. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with

9 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") with delayed expression; panic disorder; depressive

10 disorder, moderate with anxious distress. He is going to therapy one a week. Plaintiff tries to

11 appear that he has "it together", but struggles on a daily basis with his panic, depression and

12 anxiety. He did not realize how "sick" it was that MICHAEL JACKSON did the things he did to

QO 13 him as a child until he began therapy. Until he had his own children and realized how innocent ..Jg <( w Z !:::N - ::, ...... LLCI)~ 14 they were and what "bank slates" they were, he did not appreciate that when you are made to ocj ~ 0) I- ~ :;;!; 0::: <( ~ <( Z O 15 think as a child that something was "your idea" it did not seem as bad as it actually was, as in the ~ ~ :s:wet:< I-~ u_ U) z w 16 case of his abuse by MICHAEL JACKSON. - 0 z >- > > ..J 0~ Zo <( ...... 17 PENAL CODE AND CIVIL CODE VIOLATIONS OF MICHAEL JACKSON AND DOES 2~ 6THROUGH50 18

19 83. As used in C.C.P. § 340.1, "childhood sexual abuse" includes "any act committed

20 against the plaintiff that occurred when the plaintiff was under the age of 18 years and that would

21 have been proscribed by Section 266j of the California Penal Code ("Penal Code"); Section 285

22 of the Penal Code; paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (b ), or of subdivision ( c ), of Section 286 of

23 the Penal Code; subdivision ( a) or (b) of Section 288 of the Penal Code; paragraph (1) or (2) of

24 subdivision (b ), or of subdivision ( c ), of Section 288a of the Penal Code; subdivision (h), (i), or

25 G) of Section 289 of the Penal Code; Section 647.6 of the Penal Code ... " ..

26 Penal Code § 266j

27 84. As set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and Does 6 through 10,

28 inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that occurred when Plaintiff

25 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 was under the age of sixteen (16) and which would have been proscribed by Section 266j of the

2 California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of similar effect at the time the act was

3 committed by intentionally giving, transporting, providing, or making available, or offering to

4 give, transport, provide, or make available to another person, Plaintiff who was a child, under the

5 age of sixteen (16) years old, for the purpose of any lewd or lascivious act as defined in California

6 Penal Code Section 288, or by causing, inducing, or persuading Plaintiff, a child under the age of

7 sixteen (16), to engage in such an act with another person.

8 Penal Code § 288(a)

9 85. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

10 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

11 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of fourteen (14) and which would have been

12 proscribed by Section 288(a) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of

13 similar effect at the time the act was committed by willfully and lewdly committing any lewd or ...Jgoo <( LU z t:::N - ::>..- IJ..(I)~ 14 lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1 of the ca ~ m I- ~ ~ 0:: <( ~ <( z 0 15 California Penal Code, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of Plaintiff, who <( u.. :s: ~ ::J w ~ <( I-~() U) z u.i 16 was under the age of fourteen (14), with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, - 0 z >- > > ...IOzo E: <( ..- 17 passions, or sexual desires of MICHAEL JACKSON or Plaintiff. 2~ 18 Penal Code § 288(b)(1)

19 86. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

20 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

21 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of fourteen (14) and which would have been

22 proscribed by Section 288(b )(1) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of

23 similar effect at the time the act was committed by willfully and lewdly committing any lewd or

24 lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1 of the

25 California Penal Code, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of Plaintiff, who

26 was under the age of fourteen (14), with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust,

27 passions, or sexual desires of MICHAEL JACKSON or Plaintiff, by use of duress.

28 Ill

26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Penal Code § 288a(b )(1)

2 87. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

3 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

4 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of eighteen (18) and which would have been

5 proscribed by Section 288a(b)(l) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of

6 similar effect at the time the act was committed by participating in an act of oral copulation (the

7 act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another person) with

8 Plaintiff who was under eighteen (18) years of age.

9 Penal Code § 288a(b )(2)

10 88. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

11 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

12 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of eighteen (18) and which would have been

0 13 ..Jgi3 proscribed by Section 288a(b )(2) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of <( w Z !::N - :::,..-- U.(I)~ 14 similar effect at the time the act was committed by participating in an act of oral copulation (the o6 ~ 0) I- ~ :cf oc<( ~ <( z 0 15 act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another person) with s: ~ '.:i w 0::: - > > ..Jzo 0~ <( ..-- 17 age of twenty-one (21). :lE~ 18 Penal Code§ 288a(c)(l)

19 89. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

20 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

21 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of eighteen (18) and which would have been

22 proscribed by Section 288a(c )(1) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of

23 similar effect at the time the act was committed by participating in an act of oral copulation (the

24 act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another person) with

25 Plaintiff who was under the age of fourteen (14), and more than ten (10) years younger than

26 MICHAEL JACKSON.

27 Ill

28 Ill

27 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Penal Code§ 288a(c)(2)(A)

2 90. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

3 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

4 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of eighteen (18) and which would have been

5 proscribed by Section 288a(c )(2)(A) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California

6 of similar effect at the time the act was committed by committing an act of oral copulation (the

7 act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another person) when

8 the act was accomplished against Plaintiffs will by means of duress.

9 Penal Code§ 288a(c)(2)(B)

10 91. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

11 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

12 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of fourteen (14) and which would have been oo 13 proscribed by Section 288a(c )(2)(B) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California ...J26 <( w z t::N - :::, ..... u.. (/) ~ 14 of similar effect at the time the act was committed by committing an act of oral copulation (the oc?:I ~ 0) I- ~ '.£ o:::-> > zo...JOE: <( ..... 17 Plaintiff's will by means of duress. 2: ~ 18 Penal Code§ 288a(c)(2)(C)

19 92. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and Does

20 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that occurred

21 when Plaintiff was fourteen (14) years old or older, but under the age of eighteen (18), and which

22 would have been proscribed by Section 288a(c )(2)(C) of the California Penal Code or any prior

23 laws of California of similar effect at the time the act was committed by committing an act of oral

24 copulation (the act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another

25 person) upon Plaintiff who was ten (10) to seventeen (17) years old, when the act was

26 accomplished against Plaintiff's will by means of duress.

27 Ill

28 I II

28 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Penal Code§ 288a{c)(3)

2 93. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

3 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

4 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of eighteen (18) and which would have been

5 proscribed by Section 288a(c)(3) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of

6 similar effect at the time the act was committed by committing an act of oral copulation (the act

7 of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ or anus of another person) where the

8 act was accomplished against Plaintiffs will by threatening to retaliate in the future against

9 Plaintiff or any other person, and there was a reasonable possibility that MICHAEL JACKSON

10 would execute the threat.

11 Penal Code§ 289(h)

12 94. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and oo 13 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that _J g ~w Z !;:N - ::>..- LL(!)~ 14 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of eighteen (18) and which would have been o6 ~ 0) I- ~ ::f 0:: <{ ~ ~zo 15 proscribed by Section 289(h) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of <( LL :s: ~ ::i w a:: <( I-~ 0 Cl) z w· 16 similar effect at the time the act was committed by participating in an act of sexual penetration ~ 0 z >- > > zo_JO~ ~.,.. 17 (the act of causing the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of another 2~ 18 person or causing another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another person's genital or

19 anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object

20 (including any part of the body except a sexual organ), substance, instrument, or device) with

21 Plaintiff who was under eighteen ( 18) years of age.

22 Penal Code § 289(i)

23 95. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

24 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

25 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of sixteen (16) and which would have been proscribed

26 by Section 289(i) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of similar effect at

27 the time the act was committed by participating in an act of sexual penetration (the act of causing

28 the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of another person or causing

29 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another person's genital or anal opening for the

2 purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object (including any part of the

3 body except a sexual organ), substance, instrument, or device) with Plaintiff who was under

4 sixteen (16) years of age and MICHAEL JACKSON was over the age of twenty-one (21) years.

5 Penal Code § 289(j)

6 96. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

7 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

8 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of fourteen (14) and which would have been

9 proscribed by Section 289G) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of

10 similar effect at the time the act was committed by participating in an act of sexual penetration

11 (the act of causing the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of another

12 person or causing another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another person's genital or ao 13 anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object _J ~ <( w Z t::N - :::,T"" LL u:> ~ 14 (including any part of the body except a sexual organ, substance, instrument, or device) with c6 ~ 0) I- ~ :;!; 0::: <( ~ <( z 0 15 Plaintiff who was under fourteen (14) years of age and who was more than 10 years younger than < lL s: ~ :J LU n:: < I-~() U) z w- 16 MICHAEL JACKSON. - 0 z >- > > zo_JO.!!: <( ..- 17 Penal Code § 647.6(a)(l) :;E e: 18 97. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

19 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, intentionally committed the following act against Plaintiff that

20 occurred when Plaintiff was under the age of eighteen (18) and which would have been

21 proscribed by Section 647.6(a)(l) of the California Penal Code or any prior laws of California of

22 similar effect at the time the act was committed by annoying or molesting Plaintiff when he was a

23 child under eighteen (18) years of age.

24 Civil Code § 1708.5

25 98. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON, and

26 Does 6 through 10, inclusive, acted with the intent to cause a harmful and offensive contact with

27 Plaintiffs intimate parts as set forth in California Civil Code Section 1708.5 regarding sexual 28

30 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 battery, and did, in fact, cause such sexually harmful and offensive contact. On each occasion,

2 Plaintiff did not consent to MICHAEL JACKSON's conduct.

3 99. MICHAEL JACKSON did sexually harass, molest and abuse Plaintiff, who was a

4 minor at the time. Such conduct was done for MICHAEL JACKSON's sexual gratification, and

5 was performed on Plaintiff without his free consent, as Plaintiff was a mere minor and thus

6 unable to give valid, legal consent to such sexual acts.

7 100. On multiple occasions, as set forth more fully above, MICHAEL JACKSON,

8 together with his co-conspirators, alter egos, aiders and abettors and agents MJJ PRODUCTIONS

9 and MJJ VENTURES, acted with the intent to cause a harmful and offensive physical contact

10 with Plaintiff by the use of his intimate part as set forth in California Civil Code Section 1708.5

11 regarding sexual battery, and did, in fact, cause such sexually harmful or offensive contact. On

12 each occasion, Plaintiff did not consent to MICHAEL JACKSON' s conduct. The physical contact

13 alleged above, offends one's reasonable sense of personal dignity. i30...Jg <{ w Z !::N - ::i.,- lLU)~ 14 101. As a minor student, employee, and guest ofMJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ ca ~ m I- ~ ~ 0::: <( ~ <{ z 0 15 VENTURES, where MICHAEL JACKSON was employed and worked, Plaintiff was under :s: ::;;<( ::JlL w 0:: <( I-~ 0 Cl) z u.i 16 MICHAEL JACKSON's, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, and MJJ VENTURES' direct supervision, care - 0 z >- > > ...Jzo 0~ <{ ..- 17 and control, thus creating a special relationship, fiduciary relationship, and/or special care ~~ 18 relationship with Defendants, and each of them. Additionally, as a minor child under the custody,

19 care and control of Defendants, Defendants stood in loco parentis with respect to Plaintiff while

20 he was attending events and functions at locations run and controlled by Defendants MJJ

21 PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES. As the responsible parties and/or employers controlling

22 MICHAEL JACKSON, Defendants were also in a special relationship with Plaintiff, and owed

23 special duties to Plaintiff.

24 102. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants knew

25 or had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice, that MICHAEL JACKSON had engaged in

26 unlawful sexually-related conduct with minors in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in

27 such conduct with Plaintiff, and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable

28 safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by MICHAEL JACKSON, such

31 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 as that which occuned with Plaintiff, including but not limited to preventing or avoiding

2 placement of MICHAEL JACKSON in a function or environment in which contact with children

3 was an inherent part of that function or environment. Defendants had a duty to disclose to these

4 facts to Plaintiff, his parents and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed,

5 concealed or failed to disclose this information for the express purposes of facilitating MICHAEL

6 JACKSON's sexual abuse of children, maintaining MICHAEL JACKSON's image as an ethical

7 and wholesome entertainer, and securing their insured employment with MJJ PRODUCTIONS

8 and MJJ VENTURES. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting,

9 confidential, fiduciary, and/or in loco parentis relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff.

10 103. Instead, Defendants ignored and/or concealed the sexual abuse of Plaintiff and

11 others by MICHAEL JACKSON that had already occuned, and continued to allow hundreds of

12 children, including the Plaintiff, to visit Defendants' property, N everland, and other properties,

0 13 ...Jgi5 and continue to be in contact with MICHAEL JACKSON, despite this knowledge of MICHAEL <( w Z !:;:N - ::,..- LL.Cl)~ 14 JACKSON's prior, sexually abusive acts towards minors. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and o6 ~ O> I- ~ ::!,; a:: <( ~ <( z 0 15 on that basis alleges, that Defendants and each of them were given notice of incidents of LL ~ <~ :J w 0:: < 1-~0 U) z u.i 16 inappropriate conduct by MICHAEL JACKSON, including such facts as those set forth in this - 0 z >- > > ...Jzo a!!:: <( ..... 17 Co}nplaint. 2~ 18 104. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, on that basis alleges, that prior to and during the

19 sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of Plaintiff, Defendants knew or had reason to know

20 that MICHAEL JACKSON had violated his role as a dancer, entertainer, teacher, mentor, coach,

21 and advisor to minors, and used this position of authority and trust acting on behalf of Defendants

22 to gain access to children, including Plaintiff, on and off the premises and grounds of Defendants,

23 in which he caused Plaintiff to touch him, to allow him to touch Plaintiff in a sexual mam1er, and

24 engaged in sexual conduct and abuse, including harassment and molestation, with such children

25 including Plaintiff.

26 105. With actual or constructive knowledge that Defendant MICHAEL JACKSON had

27 previously engaged in dangerous and inappropriate conduct, including sexually abusing other

28 minors at Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES' owned and controlled

32 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 properties, Defendants conspired to and did knowingly fail to take reasonable steps, and failed to

2 implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by

3 MICHAEL JACKSON, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding placement of

4 MICHAEL JACKSON in a function or enviromnent in which contact with children is an inherent

5 aspect of that function or environment.

6 106. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed to report and did hide and conceal

7 from the Plaintiff,, the Plaintiffs parents, other minor children in their care ( and parents of those

8 children), law enforcement authorities, civil authorities and others, the true facts and relevant

9 information necessary to bring MICHAEL JACKSON to justice for the sexual misconduct he

10 committed with minors, as well as to protect their fiduciaries, including Plaintiff.

11 107. Defendants also implemented various measures designed to, or which effectively,

12 made MICHAEL JACKSON's conduct harder to detect including, but not limited to:

50 13 ....I g a. Permitting MICHAEL JACKSON to remain in a position of authority and <{ w Z !::N trust after Defendants knew or had reason to know he was a molester of - :::i..- 14 lLU)~ children; ~ ~ 0) ~ ~ :;!; 0::4'. ~ <{ z 0 15 b. Placing MICHAEL JACKSON in a separate and secluded environment, ~~~ w 0:: ~ including placing him in charge of young boys, mentoring programs, ~~u (I) z w 16 advising programs, coaching programs, and youth programs where they - 0 z >-> > purported to supervise the children, which allowed MICHAEL JACKSON ....Izo 0~ <{ ..- 17 to sexually and physically interact with and abuse the children, including 2: ~ Plaintiff; 18 c. Allowing MICHAEL JACKSON to come into contact with minors, 19 including Plaintiff, without adequate supervision;

20 d. Failing to inform, or concealing from Plaintiffs parents and law enforcement officials the fact that Plaintiff and others were or may have 21 been sexually abused after Defendants knew or had reason to know that MICHAEL JACKSON may have sexually abused Plaintiff or others, 22 thereby enabling Plaintiff to continue to be endangered and sexually abused, and/or creating the circumstance where Plaintiff and others were 23 less likely to receive medical/mental health care and treatment, thus exacerbating the harm to Plaintiff; 24 e. Holding out MICHAEL JACKSON to Plaintiff and his parents, other 25 children and their parents, and to the community as being in good standing and trustworthy; 26 f. Failing to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards to 27 avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by MICHAEL JACKSON with students, who were minor children; and 28

33 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT g. Failing to put in place a system or procedure to supervise or monitor 1 employees, volunteers, representatives or agents to insure that they did not molest or abuse minors in Defendants' care, including Plaintiff. 2

3 108. By his position within the Defendants' institutions, Defendants and MICHAEL

4 JACKSON demanded and required that Plaintiff respect MICHAEL JACKSON in his position of

5 dancer, entertainer, teacher, mentor, and advisor at Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ

6 VENTURES.

7 109. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants and

8 each of them, were or had reason to have been aware of MICHAEL JACKSON's wrongful

9 conduct at or about the time it was occurring, and thereafter, but took no action to obstruct, inhibit

10 or stop such continuing conduct, or to help Plaintiff endure the trauma from such conduct.

11 Despite the authority and ability to do so, these Defendants negligently and/or willfully refused

12 to, and/or did not act effectively to stop the sexual assaults on Plaintiff, to inhibit or obstruct such oo 13 abuse, or to protect Plaintiff from the results of that trauma. _J g <( w Z !::N - ::::,..-- u.. Cl)~ 14 110. During the period of abuse of Plaintiff at the hands of MICHAEL JACKSON, oes ~ °' I- ~ :;!; O::-> > zo_JO~ <( ...- 17 willfully failed to do so, thereby allowing the abuse to occur and to continue unabated. This 2.:~ 18 failure was a part of Defendants' plan and arrangement to conceal wrongful acts, to avoid and

19 inhibit detection, to block public disclosure, to avoid scandal, to avoid the disclosure of their

20 tolerance of child sexual molestation and abuse, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and

21 to avoid investigation and action by public authority including law enforcement. Plaintiff is

22 infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges, that such actions were motivated by a desire to

23 protect the reputation of Defendants and each of them, and to protect the monetary support of

24 Defendants while fostering an enviromnent where such abuse could continue to occur.

25 LIABILITY OF MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES AND DOES 6 THROUGH 50

26 111. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at the time

27 MICHAEL JACKSON's violations of the Penal Code and Civil Code alleged herein, were

28 committed, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50,

34 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 inclusive, had actual knowledge of, had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice of, prior acts

2 of childhood sexual abuse co1mnitted by MICHAEL JACKSON, and despite such knowledge

3 and/or notice, placed Plaintiff in MICHAEL JACKSON's custody and/or made Plaintiff available

4 to MICHAEL JACKSON and then failed to take reasonable steps or implement reasonable

5 safeguards to protect Plaintiff from MICHAEL JACKSON's acts of abuse. Plaintiff is further

6 informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that these acts and/or omissions on the part of

7 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, were

8 committed in spite of their ability to exercise control over the personal and business affairs of

9 MICHAEL JACKSON. Accordingly, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and

10 Does 6 through 50, are liable for MICHAEL JACKSON's acts of childhood sexual abuse in that

11 their wrongful, intentional and/or negligent acts were a legal cause of the childhood sexual abuse

12 within the meaning ofC.C.P. §§ 340.l(a)(2), (3) and (b)(2).

ci 0 13 DUTY OF MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES AND DOES 6 THROUGH 50 ...Jg <( w Z 1::N - :::,..- I.L.U) ~ 14 112. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, o6 ~ 0) I- ~ ::i; o:::- > > ...J o-9:: Zo <( ..- 17 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, and their agents, :lE~ 18 employees, and/or servants, and was placed in such custody, control, and dominion in locations

19 including, but not limited to: N everland, the "Hideout", and the Havenhurst residence. The

20 Plaintiff, as a minor in the custody, control, and under the dominion of Defendants MJJ

21 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, stood in loco parentis

22 with Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive. As

23 an entity responsible for the custody, supervision, care, and dominion of minor children in its

24 care, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive,

25 owed the Plaintiff a special duty of care, as the Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

26 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, were entrusted with the Plaintiffs safety, security

27 and care. See Pamela L. v. Farmer (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 206, 211-12 ("In inviting the children

28 to her home, respondent assumed that special relationship. Respondent recognized that special

35 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 duty and relationship when she assured plaintiffs' parents it would be safe for them to play at her

2 house.") Specifically, Defendant MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES owed a special

3 duty to the Plaintiff for the following reasons:

4 a. The Plaintiff was taken in by MICHAEL JACKSON and Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES, as many children were, such as Wade 5 Robson, for purported grooming in the music and entertainment industry. These organizations regularly employed, and otherwise supervised, minors in their care, 6 for the express purpose of staffing commercials, concerts, and otherwise developing young entertainers. 7 b. The presence of these minors in Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES' custody and on these Defendants premises ( or otherwise rented or 8 leased locations) was known, expected, and promoted by MICHAEL JACKSON and Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES. 9 c. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES would routinely, as a 10 common business practice, pay for travel, lodging and accommodations for minors who would perform with MICHAEL JACKSON. Through Defendants MJJ 11 PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES, MICHAEL JACKSON would ostensibly provide training for minors who desired to be entertainers. In so providing this 12 training, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES allowed MICHAEL JACKSON to be in contact with minors, when their agents had knowledge, or reason to know, that MICHAEL JACKSON had a propensity to ci 0 13 ....I g - > > serv~ces, food preparation, maid services, transportation services, and scheduling ....IOzo .E!:

20 113. Given the knowing failure of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES

21 and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, to protect Plaintiff as alleged herein, pursuant to C.C.P. §

22 340.1 (b )(2), the statute oflimitations applicable to Plaintiffs claims against Defendants MJJ

23 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, is that provided in C.C.P.

24 § 340. l(a), "within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have

25 discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by

26 the sexual abuse."

36 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON MICHAEL JACKSON BY DEFENDANTS AND 1 CONTROL OF MICHAEL JACKSON BY DEFENDANTS MJJ PRODUCTIONS AND MJJ VENTURES 2 114. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES were entities created to, 3 at least in part, provide for the welfare and safety of minor children. In doing so, the board of 4 directors and officers of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES, conferred 5 substantial actual and ostensible authority unto MICHAEL JACKSON. Specifically, as an agent 6 of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES, and distinct from those entities, 7 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES permitted MICHAEL JACKSON to 8 have solitary contact with minors including the Plaintiff, consisting of: allowing the Plaintiff ( and 9 other minors) to sleep in MICHAEL JACKSON's bed, allowing MICHAEL JACKSON to train 10 and coach minors (including the Plaintiff) for entertainment, music, and dancing in solitary 11 confinement, allowing MICHAEL JACKSON to travel with minors including the Plaintiff, and 12 allowing MICHAEL JACKSON to have authority over those minors as an employment superior 13 ...Jgoo <( w and supervisor. It is through this authority that was conferred upon MICHAEL JACKSON by Z !::N - ::,..- U..C/)~ 14 ocS ~ 0) I- ~ ~ Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES, that the Plaintiff was placed in contact er.:<~ <( z 0 15 s: 2~ ::JlL LU er:: ~ with MICHAEL JACKSON, under the control of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ I-~ u (/) z w- 16 - 0 z >- > > VENTURES, and sexually abused by MICHAEL JACKSON. Thus, Defendants MJJ ...Jzo 0~ <( ..- 17 :E ~ VENTURES and MJJ PRODUCTIONS are bound by the acts of MICHAEL JACKSON, given 18 that MICHAEL JACKSON was granted the ostensible and actual authority to do so. 19 115. Notwithstanding the fact that Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ 20 VENTURES are bound by the acts of their agent MICHAEL JACKSON, from authority 21 conferred to MICHAEL JACKSON by the board of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ 22 VENTURES, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES employed individuals 23 who were responsible for supervising MICHAEL JACKSON and the minors in his charge, 24 including the Plaintiff. Specifically, the following facts show that employees within Defendants 25 MJJ VENTURES and MJJ PRODUCTIONS were ceded authority by Defendants to supervise 26 MICHAEL JACKSON and the minors in his charge (including the Plaintiff) and were put in a 27 place of employment which necessarily required them to provide for the safety of the minors 28

37 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 placed in contact with MICHAEL JACKSON. Specifically, the following facts show that these

2 employees with Defendants were ceded control of MICHAEL JACKSON and, by the nature of

3 their job, required to provide for the safety of those minors:

4 a. Norma Staikos and Jolie Levine were both employed by Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and/or MJJ VENTURES; 5 b. During the time that the Plaintiff was being sexually abused by MICHAEL JACKSON, alleged herein, Ms. Staikos and Ms. Levine were placed in a role 6 within Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES whereby the safety, welfare, and well-being of all minor children entrusted to Defendants was 7 Ms. Staikos and Ms. Levine's primary responsibility. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES, either actually or ostensibly, ceded 8 authority to Ms. Staikos and Ms. Levine to supervise the minor children in the Defendants' custody, whereby they would be required to report suspected child 9 abuse and protect those minors from known, or reasonably ascertainable dangers, including MICHAEL JACKSON. 10 c. MICHAEL JACKSON took no actions to provide for the welfare, safety, and/or 11 care of the minors who were entrusted to Defendants. In fact, MICHAEL JACKSON sexually abused the Plaintiff, as well as other minors, when they were 12 placed in his care. Thus, Ms. Levine and Ms. Staikos d. Ms. Levine and Ms. Staikos had, at all times and during the entirety of the oo 13 .....I g Plaintiffs sexual abuse, the authority to halt the sexual abuse of the Plaintiff. <( w z !:::N Specifically, Ms. Levine and Ms. Staikos had the authority and ability to limit - ::,..- 14 I.LC/)~ MICHAEL JACKSON's access to minor children including, by not limited to: (a) ~ ~ 0) I- ~ ~ requiring parents of these minors be present at all times that the minors were alone 0:: <( i2 <( z 0 15 with MICHAEL JACKSON, (b) reporting MICHAEL JACKSON to law <( LL s:: :;j; :J w fl:'. <( enforcement for suspected childhood sexual abuse, ( c) enforcing rules, regulations, I-~(.) Cl) z w- 16 or procedures by which other employees of Defendants would report MICHAEL ~ 0 z >- > > JACKSON to law enforcement, should those employees suspect childhood sexual ...IOzo .f!: <( ..- 17 abuse, and (d) implementing procedures by which MICHAEL JACKSON's access ~~ to minor children would be limited. At all relevant times herein, Ms. Levine and 18 Ms. Staikos had the authority, by law, to engage in any of these actions listed herein, yet chose not to act, allowing the sexual abuse of the Plaintiff, as well as 19 other minors. 20 e. Furthermore, parents of the minors entrusted to the Defendants, including the Plaintiff, were put into contact with Ms. Levine and Ms. Staikos, and were assured 21 by Ms. Staikos and Ms. Levine, that their children would be safe, taken care of, and cared for, while they were in contact with MICHAEL JACKSON. Regardless 22 of whether Ms. Staikos and Ms. Levine were fonnally conferred this authority by Defendants ( and their board and officers), allowing Ms. Levine and Ms. Staikos to 23 make these representations and be in such contact with the minors and their parents, ostensibly conferred this authority unto them. 24 116. Moreover, the following employees of Defendants' knew or had reason to know 25 that MICHAEL JACKSON had a propensity to sexually abuse children, yet did nothing to halt 26 that abuse by implementing reasonable safeguards. Furthermore, these employees had the ability 27

38 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 and authority to implement reasonable safeguards, yet chose not to do so, which caused harm to

2 the Plaintiff and others:

3 f. During the time that the Plaintiff was being sexually abused by MICHAEL JACKSON alleged herein, Jolie Levine was aware that Michael Jackson had a 4 propensity to sexually abuse children. Furthermore, Ms. Levine was aware that the Plaintiff was sleeping in MICHAEL JACKSON's bed with him. 5 g. Ms. Staikos was further aware of MICHAEL JACKSON's propensity to sexually abuse children, prior to the time that Plaintiff was placed in Defendants custody, 6 care and control. Ms. Staikos had informed other employees of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES that they should never leave their children · 7 alone with MICHAEL JACKSON. 8 DAMAGES

9 117. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff

10 from MICHAEL JACKSON's acts of childhood sexual abuse as alleged above, Plaintiff has

11 suffered and will continue to suffer (a) severe mental and emotional distress including, but not

12 limited to, severe anxiety, stress, anger, fear, low self-esteem, shame, humiliation, depression and j:jo 13 physical distress; (b) expenses for mental health professionals and other medical treatment; and ....I g <( w Z t: N - ::,..- u.. Cf.)~ 14 ( c) loss of past and future earnings and other economic benefits according to proof at the time of oes : m I- ~ :;!; 0::: <( ~ <( z 0 15 trial. $ <( u.. ~ ::J w tt: <( I-~() U) z w 16 118. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' tortuous acts, omissions, - 0 z >- > 5 ....Izo 0~ <( ..- 17 wrongful conduct and/or breaches of their duties, whether willful or negligent, Plaintiffs 2~ 18 employment and personal development has been adversely affected. Plaintiff has lost wages as a

19 · result of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Defendants, and will continue ~o lose wages in an

20 amount to be detennined at trial. Plaintiff has suffered economic injury, all to Plaintiffs general,

21 special and consequential damage in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the

22 minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court.

23 119. As is set forth herein, Defendants and each of them have failed to uphold

24 numerous mandatory duties imposed upon them by state and federal law, and by written policies

25 and procedures applicable to Defendants, including but not limited to the following:

26 Ill

27 Ill

28 Ill

39 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT * Duty t

2 * Duty to ensure that any direction given to employees is lawful, and that adults act fairly, responsibly and respectfully towards other adults and 3 minor children;

4 * Duty to properly train teachers, mentors, coaches, and advisors so that they are aware of their individual responsibility for creating and maintaining a 5 safe environment;

6 * Duty to supervise employees and minor children in its care, enforce rules and regulations prescribed for childcare organizations, exercise reasonable 7 control over minor children in its care as is reasonably necessary to maintain order, protect property, or protect the health and safety of 8 employees and minor children or to maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning and child development; 9 * Duty to exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in the youth 10 programs set forth by Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES; 11 * Duty to properly monitor minor children, prevent or correct harmful 12 situations or call for help when a situation is beyond their control;

0 a 13 _. ~ * Duty to ensure that personnel are actually on hand and supervising <( UJ Z I- N students; u: ~ ~ 14 oc:s ~ (J) I- ~ ~ * Duty to provide enough supervision to minor children, including the 0:: <( ~ <( z 0 15 Plaintiff; <( LL s: ;;E ::J w er:<( I-~() en z w 16 * Duty to supervise diligently; ~ 0 z >- > > zo-I a~ 17 <( T"" * Duty to act promptly and diligently and not ignore or minimize problems; ~~ 18 * Duty to refrain from violating Plaintiffs right to protection from bodily restraint or hann, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to 19 her personal relations (Civil Code§ 43);

20 * Duty to abstain from injuring the person or property of Plaintiff, or infringing upon any of her rights (Civil Code § 1708); and 21 * Duty to report suspected incidents of child abuse and more specifically 22 childhood sexual abuse (Penal Code §§11166, 11167). 23 120. The conduct alleged above included intentional, outrageous, malicious, despicable 24 and oppressive acts beyond the bounds of decent behavior, which were undertaken, wantonly, 25 oppressively and with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs rights as a child. Plaintiff is therefore 26 entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish, deter and make an 27 example of those Defendants engaging in such behavior according to proof at trial. In subjecting 28

40 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants MJJ VENTURES, MJJ

2 PRODUCTIONS and MICHAEL JACKSON acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to

3 harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights, so as to constitute malice and/or

4 oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is informed, and on that basis

5 alleges, that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, as alleged herein above, were ratified

6 by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of the Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

7 VENTURES, and DOES 6 through 50. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to the recovery of punitive

8 damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS,

9 MJJ VENTURES, and DOES 6 through 50, in a sum to be shown according to proof.

10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 11 (As To Defendants MJJ Productions, MJJ Ventures, and Does 6 Through 50) 12 121. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1

ci 0 13 through 118, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. ..Jl:6 <( w z !::N - :::,..- U..C/)~ 14 122. Defendants' conduct towards the Plaintiff, as described herein, was outrageous and o6 ~ 0) I-~~ ~<{ ~ <( z 0 15 extreme. <( LL s: :::!!: ::J w 0:: <( I-~ 0 en z u.r 16 123. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants' putting MICHAEL ~ 0 z >-> 5 ....Jzo a.ff <( ..- 17 JACKSON in positions of authority at MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES, and DOES 6-50, ~~ 18 which enabled MICHAEL JACKSON to have access to minor children, including Plaintiff, so

19 that he could commit wrongful sexual acts with him, including the conduct described herein

20 above. Plaintiff held great trust, faith and confidence in Defendants, which, by virtue of

21 Defendants' wrongful conduct, turned to fear.

22 124. A reasonable person would not expect or tolerate Defendants to be incapable of

23 supervising and preventing employees of Defendants, including MICHAEL JACKSON, from

24 committing wrongful sexual acts with minor children in their charge, including Plaintiff, or to be

25 incapable of properly supervising MICHAEL JACKSON to prevent such abuse from occurring.

26 125. Defendants' conduct described herein was intentional and malicious and done for

27 the purpose of causing, or with the substantial certainty that it would cause Plaintiff to suffer

28 humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical distress.

41 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 126. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to

2 suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of

3 emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of

4 enjoyment of life; have suffered and continue to suffer and were prevented and will continue to

5 be prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain

6 loss of earnings and earning capacity, and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for

7 medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

8 127. In subjecting the Plaintiff to the wrongful treatment herein described, Defendants

9 MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and DOES 6-50, acted willfully and maliciously with

10 the intent to harm Plaintiff, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, so as to constitute

11 malice and oppression under California Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to

12 the recovery of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the court, against Defendants

0 13 ci_Jg MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and DOES 6 through 50, inclusive, in a sum to be <( w z !:::N - ::J..- LL U) ~ 14 shown according to proof. DIS ~ °' I- g;i :,!; 0:: <( ~ <( z 0 15 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ~~~ w 0:: <( NEGLIGENCE I-~() 16 Cl) z w (As To Defendants MJJ Productions, MJJ Ventures, and Does 6 Through 50) - 0 z >-> > ...lo.!fzo <( ..- 17 128. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 ~~ 18 through 125, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

19 129. As more fully set forth above, the conduct and actions of MICHAEL JACKSON

20 and Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive,

21 served to create an environment in which MICHAEL JACKSON was afforded continuous access

22 to Plaintiff.

23 130. As more fully set forth above, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

24 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, were aware of, had reason to know of, and/or

25 were otherwise on notice of MICHAEL JACKSON's proclivities for engaging in sexual acts with

26 young boys prior to the first occasion on which Plaintiff was placed in MICHAEL JACKSON's

27 custody through the acts of Defendants. Accordingly, at the time MICHAEL JACKSON and

28 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive,

42 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 performed the acts alleged herein, it was or should have been reasonably foreseeable to

2 Defendants that by continuously exposing and making Plaintiff available to MICHAEL

3 JACKSON, Defendants were placing Plaintiff in grave risk of being sexually abused by

4 MICHAEL JACKSON. By knowingly subjecting Plaintiff to such foreseeable danger, and by

5 subsequently assuming the position of Plaintiffs employer, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS,

6 MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, were duty-bound to take reasonable steps

7 and implement reasonable safeguards to protect Plaintiff from MICHAEL JACKSON.

8 Furthermore, as alleged herein, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6

9 through 50, inclusive, at all times exercised a sufficient degree of control over MICHAEL

10 JACKSON's personal and business affairs to prevent the acts of abuse by keeping MICHAEL

11 JACKSON away from Plaintiff. However, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES

12 and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, failed to take any reasonable steps or implement any reasonable

50 13 safeguards for Plaintiffs protection whatsoever, and continued to make Plaintiff accessible to ..Jg <( w Z !::N - ::,...-- u.. Cl)~ 14 MICHAEL JACKSON for the purposes of sexual abuse. ocS ~ 0) I- ~ :;!; o:::-> > ....lo~ zo <( ..- 17 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and DOES 6 through 50, inclusive, were child care 2: ~ 18 custodians and were under a statutory duty to report known or suspected incidents of sexual

19 molestation or abuse of minors to a child protective agency, pursuant to California Penal Code §

20 11166, and/or not to impede the filing of any such report. Furthermore, Defendants MJJ

21 PRODUCTIONS and MJJ VENTURES were under a statutory duty to provide their employees

22 with various acknowledgements ofreporting requirements under Penal Code§ 11166.5. :, 23 132. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and DOES 6 through 50,

24 inclusive, knew or had reason to know that their agent, employee, counselor, advisor and mentor,

25 MICHAEL JACKSON, had sexually molested, abused or caused touching, battery, harm, and

26 other injuries to minors, including Plaintiff, giving rise to a duty to report such conduct under

27 California Penal Code § 11166.

43 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 133. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and DOES 6 through 50,

2 inclusive, knew, or had reason to know of in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that an undue

3 risk to minors, including the Plaintiff, existed because Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS and MJJ

4 VENTURES did not comply with California's mandatory reporting requirements.

5 134. By failing to report the continuing molestations and abuse, which Defendants MJJ

6 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and DOES 6 through 50, inclusive, knew of or had reason to

7 known of, and by ignoring the fulfillment of the mandated compliance with the reporting

8 requirements provided under California Penal Code§ 11166, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS,

9 MJJ VENTURES and DOES 6 through 50, inclusive, created the risk and danger contemplated

10 by the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (hereinafter "CANRA"), and as a result,

11 unreasonably and wrongfully exposed Plaintiff and other minors to sexual molestation and abuse.

12 135. The Plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose protection California oo 13 Penal Code § 11166 was specifically adopted to protect. ..Jg <{ UJ z !::N - ::>.,.... LL Cl)~ 14 136. Had Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and DOES 6 through ocS ~ 0) I- g;! ~ ct::<( ~ <{ z 0 15 50, inclusive, adequately reported the molestation of Plaintiff and other minors as required by ~ <( u.. ::'2: ::i w 0:: <( I-~ 0 en z w- 16 California Penal Code § 11166, further hann to Plaintiff and other minors would have been - 0 z >-> > ..JOzo ..9: <{.,.... 17 avoided. :i:E~ 18 137. As a proximate result of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and

19 DOES 6 through 50's, inclusive, failure to follow the mandatory reporting requirements of

20 California Penal Code § 11166, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and DOES

21 6 through 50, inclusive, wrongfully denied the Plaintiff and other minors the intervention of child

22 protection services. Such public agencies would have changed the then-existing arrangements and

23 conditions that provided the access and opportunities for the molestation of Plaintiff by

24 MICHAEL JACKSON.

25 138. The physical, mental, and emotional damages and injuries resulting from the

26 sexual molestation of Plaintiff by MICHAEL JACKSON, were the type of occurrence and

27 injuries that the CANRA was designed to prevent.

44 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 139. As a result, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and DOES 6

2 through 50's, inclusive, failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of

3 California Penal Code § 11166 also constituted a per se breach of Defendants' MJJ

4 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's, inclusive duties to Plaintiff.

5 140. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of Defendants MJJ

6 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, to protect Plaintiff from

7 the acts of childhood sexual abuse to which he was subjected by MICHAEL JACKSON, Plaintiff

8 has suffered and will continue to suffer (a) severe mental and emotional distress including, but

9 not limited to, severe anxiety, stress, anger, fear, low self-esteem, shame, humiliation, depression

10 and physical distress; (b) expenses for mental health professionals and other medical treatment;

11 and (c) loss of past and future earnings and other economic benefits according to proof at the time

12 of trial.

i5 0 13 ....I g THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION <( w Z !::N NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION - :::,....- !LU)~ 14 (As To Defendants MJJ Productions, MJJ Ventures, and Does 6 Through 50) o1j ~ O} I-~~ 0::: <( i? <( z 0 15 141. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 ~ :z<( :::;I.I.. w n:: <( I-~() U) z w 16 through 138, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. ~ 0 z >- > > ....lo$ zo <( ....- 17 142. By virtue of Plaintiffs special relationship with Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, 2~ 18 MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive,, and Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

19 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's, inclusive, relation to MICHAEL JACKSON, Defendants

20 MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, owed Plaintiff a duty

21 to provide reasonable supervision of MICHAEL JACKSON, to use reasonable care in

22 investigating MICHAEL JACKSON's background, and to provide adequate warning to the

23 Plaintiff, and other children, of MICHAEL JACKSON's dangerous propensities and unfitness.

24 143. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants MJJ

25 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, by and through their

26 respective agents, servants and employees, knew or had reason to know of MICHAEL

27 JACKSON's dangerous and exploitive propensities and/or that MICHAEL JACKSON was an

28 unfit agent. Despite such knowledge, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and

45 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Does 6 through 50, inclusive, negligently failed to supervise MICHAEL JACKSON in his

2 position of trust and authority as an authority figure and supervisor of children, where he was able

3 to commit wrongful acts against the Plaintiff. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

4 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, failed to provide reasonable supervision of

5 MICHAEL JACKSON, failed to use reasonable care in investigating MICHAEL JACKSON, and

6 failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff of MICHAEL JACKSON's dangerous propensities

7 and unfitness. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50,

8 inclusive, further failed to take reasonable measures to prevent sexual abuse harassment, and

9 molestation of children, including Plaintiff.

10 144. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants MJJ

11 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, were put on notice, and

12 knew or had reason to know, that MICHAEL JACKSON had previously engaged and was iS 0 13 continuing to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with children and committed other felonies, for ...J ~ <{ w Z [::N - ::) ...... lLU)~ 14 his own personal gratification, and that it was, or should have been foreseeable that he was ci6 ~ 0) I- ~ ~ c::: <( ~ <{ z 0 15 engaging, or would engage in illicit sexual activities with Plaintiff, and others, under the cloak of <( LL s: ~ ::J LU a::: <( I-~ t) Cf) z w- 16 his authority, confidence, and trust, bestowed upon him through Defendants MJJ ~ 0 z >- > > ...Jzo 0~ <{ ...... 17 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, and each of them. :E e: 18 145. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants MJJ

19 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, were placed on actual

20 and/or constructive notice that, MICHAEL JACKSON had children prior to, and/or during the

21 time he was in contact with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed, and thereon alleges, that

22 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, were

23 informed of sexual abuse, harassment and molestations committed by MICHAEL JACKSON or

24 of conduct that would put a reasonable person on notice of such propensity to abuse, harassment

25 and molestation.

26 146. Even though Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6

27 through 50, inclusive, knew or had reason to know of these activities by MICHAEL JACKSON,

28 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, did

46 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 nothing to investigate, supervise or monitor MICHAEL JACKSON to ensure the safety of the

2 guests.

3 14 7. As an institution entrusted with the care of minors, where staff, employees, agents,

4 and management, such as the MICHAEL JACKSON were placed in contact with minors,

5 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's expressly and

6 implicitly represented that these individuals, including MICHAEL JACKSON, were not a sexual

7 threat to children and others who would fall under MICHAEL JACKSON's influence, control,

8 direction, and guidance.

9 148. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50,

10 inclusive, negligeritly failed to supervise MICHAEL JACKSON in his positions of trust and

11 authority as an employee, agent, counselor and mentor, and/or other authority figure, where

12 MICHAEL JACKSON was able to commit wrongful acts against the Plaintiff. Defendants MJJ

i5 0 13 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, failed to provide ....I g <( w z I- N u: ~ ~ 14 reasonable supervision of MICHAEL JACKSON. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ ccS ~ 0) I-~~ o:::- > > ....IOzo E: <( ..- 17 149. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants' MJJ ~~ 18 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, have in place a system or

19 procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise and monitor individuals in contact with minor

20 children, including MICHAEL JACKSON, to prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual

21 harassment, molestation and abuse of children, nor did they implement a system or procedure to

22 oversee or monitor conduct toward minors, students and others in Defendants MJJ

23 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, care.

24 150. Defendants' MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50,

25 inclusive, were or had reason to be aware and understand how vulnerable children were to sexual

26 harassment, molestation and abuse by mentors, advisors, and other persons of authority within

27 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive. 28

47 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 151. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's,

2 inclusive, conduct was a breach of their duties to the Plaintiff.

3 152. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50,

4 inclusive, breached their duty to the Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to adequately monitor and

5 supervise MICHAEL JACKSON and stopping MICHAEL JACKSON from committing wrongful

6 sexual acts with minors including the Plaintiff. This belief is founded on the fact that employees

7 and staff of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50,

8 inclusive, including had suspected the abuse was occurring at the time, and failed to investigate

9 into the matter further. Based on these facts, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

10 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, knew or had reason to know of MICHAEL

11 JACKSON's incapacity to supervise and stop employees of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS,

12 MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive from committing wrongful sexual acts with oo 13 mmors. -' g <( w Z t: N - :::i.,.... LL CJ)~ 14 153. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to o6 ~ 0) I- ~ ~ n::: <( ii <( z 0 15 suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of 3: :a;:::;<( LL w 0:: <( I-~() Cl) z u.i 16 emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of ~ 0 z >-> > -'zo 0 .!!: <( .,.... 17 enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be :!:~ 18 prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain

19 loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for

20 medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT RETENTION/HIRING 22 (As To Defendants MJJ Productions, MJJ Ventures, and Does 6 Through 50) 23 154. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1

24 through 118, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

25 155. By virtue of Plaintiffs special relationship with Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS,

26 MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive and each of them, and Defendants MJJ

27 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's, inclusive, relation to MICHAEL

28 JACKSON, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50,

48 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 inclusive, owed Plaintiff a duty to not hire and/or retain MICHAEL JACKSON, given his

2 dangerous and exploitive propensities, which Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

3 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, knew or had reason to know had they engaged in

4 a meaningful and adequate investigation of his background prior to his hiring.

5 156. As an institution entrusted with the care of minors, where staff, employees, agents,

6 and management, such as the MICHAEL JACKSON were placed in contact with minors,

7 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's, inclusive,

8 expressly and implicitly represented that these individuals, including MICHAEL JACKSON,

9 were not a sexual threat to children and others who would fall under MICHAEL JACKSON's

10 influence, control, direction, and guidance.

11 157. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at no time during

12 the periods of time alleged did Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6

13 oo_.g through 50's, inclusive, have in place a system or procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise ~w z !:::N - ::::>..- LL Cf.)~ 14 and/or monitor those individuals in direct contact with children, including MICHAEL cc:! ~ 0) I- ~ s 0:: <( ~ ~zo 15 JACKSON, to prevent pre-sexual grooming and/or sexual harassment, molestation and abuse of s: ::;;,<( ::Ju.. UJ n:: <( I-~ 0 CJ) z ui 16 patrons, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct toward - 0 z >-> > ....IO.!!:zo ~.,.. 17 patrons and others in Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 2~ 18 50's, inclusive, care.

19 158. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's,

20 inclusive, and each of them were or had reason to be aware and understand how vulnerable minor

21 children were to sexual abuse, harassment and molestation by persons of authority, including the

22 MICHAEL JACKSON, within the control of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

23 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive.

24 159. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and on that basis alleges other children and/or

25 employees of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's,

26 inclusive, complained of MICHAEL JACKSON's sexual improprieties prior to the sexual abuse

27 of the Plaintiff. Either Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through

49 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 50's, inclusive, knew, or at the very least should have had reason to know of MICHAEL

2 JACKSON's prior criminal history of sexual misconduct with guests prior to Plaintiffs abuse.

3 160. Plaintiff is informed, and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Defendants

4 MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, were put on notice,

5 and had reason to know that MICHAEL JACKSON had previously engaged and continued to

6 engage in unlawful sexual conduct with patrons and other felonies, for his own personal

7 gratification, and that it was, or should have been foreseeable that he was engaging, or would

8 engage in illicit sexual activities with Plaintiff, and others, under the cloak of his authority,

9 confidence, and trust, bestowed upon him through Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

10 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive.

11 161. Plaintiff is infonned and believes, and on that basis alleges that Defendants MJJ

12 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's, inclusive, were placed on actual

0 13 ..Jgi5 and/or constructive notice that MICHAEL JACKSON had abused, harassed, molested and/or was ~w Z t: N - ::::i..- LL(I)~ 14 molesting minor children, both before his sexual abuse, molestation and harassment of the ~ cm I- ~ ~ 0::: <( z z 0:: 15 Plaintiff, and during that same period. Plaintiff is infonned, and thereon alleges, that other third ~ ::l':<{ ::Jfi: w 0:: <{ I-~() Cl)zw 16 parties, patrons, and/or law enforcement officials informed Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, ~ 0 z >- > > ..Jzo o.Q; ~..- 17 MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, of inappropriate conduct and molestations ~~ 18 committed by MICHAEL JACKSON.

19 162. Even though Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6

20 through 50, inclusive, knew or had reason to know of these activities by MICHAEL JACKSON,

21 Plaintiff is informed that Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6

22 through 50, inclusive, failed to use reasonable care in investigating MICHAEL JACKSON and

23 did nothing to investigate, supervise or monitor MICHAEL JACKSON to ensure the safety of the

24 other minor children in his charge, including the Plaintiff.

25 163. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50's,

26 inclusive, conduct was a breach of their duties to the Plaintiff.

27 164. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

28 suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of

50 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of

2 enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be

3 prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment oflife; will sustain

4 loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for

5 medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

6 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO TRAIN, WARN OR EDUCATE 7 (As To Defendants MJJ Productions, MJJ Ventures, and Does 6 Through 50) 8 165. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1

9 through 162, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

10 166. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50,

11 inclusive owed Plaintiff a duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect Plaintiff and

12 other minor children in their charge from the risk of sexual abuse, harassment and molestation by oo 13 MICHAEL JACKSON by properly warning, training or educating the Plaintiff and other minors ...I g <{ w Z t::N - :::,..- u.. C/) ~ 14 about how to avoid such a risk. oc?S ~ CJ) I- ~ :'.;!; ~ <( ~ <{ z 0 15 167. Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, 3: :;,-> > ...IO~zo <{ ..- 17 minor children in their charge, from the risk of sexual abuse, harassment and molestation by ~~ 18 MICHAEL JACKSON, such as the failure to properly warn, train or educate Plaintiff and other

19 minor children in their charge about how to avoid such a risk.

20 168. Defendants breached their duty to take reasonable protective measures to protect

21 Plaintiff and other minor children in their charge from the risk of sexual harassment, molestation

22 and abuse by MICHAEL JACKSON, by failing to supervising and/or stop employees of

23 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, including

24 MICHAEL JACKSON, from committing wrongful sexual acts with minor children, including

25 Plaintiff.

26 169. As a result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to

27 suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of

28 emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliations, and loss of

51 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 enjoyment of life; has suffered and continues to suffer and was prevented and will continue to be

2 prevented from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment oflife; will sustain

3 loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for

4 medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

5 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (As To Defendants MJJ Productions, MJJ Ventures, and Does 6 Through 50) 7 170. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 8 through 167, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 9 171. As set forth more fully above, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ 10 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, in concert with MICHAEL JACKSON, recruited, 11 enticed, and encouraged Plaintiff and Plaintiffs family to give their trust and confidence to 12 Defendants and MICHAEL JACKSON so that Plaintiff could be taken from his family's care and ao 13 _J g supervision and placed under the care and supervision of Defendants and MICHAEL JACKSON. <( w Z !::N - :::>..- 14 lLC/)~ In so doing, Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, oes ~ °' I- ~ '.'!; er: <( ~ ..:i:zo 15 <( I.J.. inclusive, entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff whereby Defendants owed Plaintiff s ~ ::J w 0:: <( I-~(.) en z uI 16 - 0 z an in loco parentis duty of care to take all reasonable steps and implement all reasonable >- > > ...Jzo o..9: <( ..- 17 ~~ safeguards to protect Plaintiff while he was in the custody of Defendants and/or MICHAEL 18 JACKSON. 19 172. Plaintiff and his mother agreed to place their trust and confidence in Defendants 20 MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, in the expectation 21 that Defendants would properly supervise Plaintiff, regulate his activities and behavior, and 22 ensure his safety. Further, Plaintiff and his family agreed to this because they believed in the 23 integrity of Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, 24 inclusive, and therefore felt comfortable in entrusting the minor Plaintiff to the care and custody 25 of Defendants. 26 173. As alleged herein, MICHAEL JACKSON breached his duty to Plaintiff by 27 repeatedly subjecting Plaintiff to acts of childhood sexual abuse. As further alleged herein, 28

52 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Defendants MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, breached

2 this duty to Plaintiff by failing to take any reasonable steps or implement any reasonable

3 safeguards to protect Plaintiff from MICHAEL JACKSON, and by allowing Plaintiff to be

4 sexually abused by MICHAEL JACKSON on a regular basis for years.

5 174. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' MJJ PRODUCTIONS, MJJ

6 VENTURES and Does 6 through 50, inclusive, breach of their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, Plaintiff

7 has suffered and will continue to suffer (a) severe mental and emotional distress including, but

8 not limited to, severe anxiety, stress, anger, fear, low self-esteem, shame, humiliation, depression

9 and physical distress; (b) expenses for mental health professionals and other medical treatment;

10 and ( c) loss of past and future earnings and other economic benefits according to proof at the time

11 of trial.

12 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

0 a 13 Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as follows: ...Jg <( UJ z t: N - :::>..- U..C/)~ 14 1. For past, present and future general damages in an amount to be determined at ec?j ~ 0) I- g;! ~ o::-> > ...lo~zo <( .,.-- 17 present and future lost earnings, economic damages and others, in an amount to be 2~ 18 determined at trial;

19 3. Any appropriate punitive or exemplary damages against Defendants MJJ

20 PRODUCTIONS, MJJ VENTURES, and DOES 6-50;

21 4. Any appropriate statutory damages;

22 5. For costs of suit;

23 6. For interest as allowed by law;

24 7. For attorney's fees pursuant to California C.C.P. §§ 1021.4, 1021.5, or otherwise

25 as allowable by law; and

26 8. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

27 Ill

28 Ill

53 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Dated: February 15, 2017 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 2 By: 3 FINALDI, Esq . . WO F, sq. 4 Attorneys of Record for Plaintiff, 5 JAMES SAFECHUCK.

12 i30 13 ..Jg <( LU z [::N ::,.,... -lL(I)~ 14 oes ~ °' ~~~ ,x<( ~ .:i:zo 15 :s: ::;:;<( ::JLL. w a::<( ~~(.) Cl) z uj 16 ~ 0 z >-> > ...J 0~ zo <(.,... 17 :E~ 18

54 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 1 A trial by Jury is hereby demanded by Plaintiff. 2 Dated: February 15, 2017 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 3

4 By: 5 FINALDI, Esq. , Esq. 6 Attorneys of Record for Plaintiff, 7 JAMES SAFECHUCK.

0 13 ...Jgci <( w Z !:::N - :::,r- IJ..CI)~ 14 oej ~ (J) I-~~ a:::~~ <( z 0 15 <( LL ~ ::;!: ::J w 0::: <( I-~ 0 U) z ui 16 ~ 0 z >-> > ...Jo.!:!: zo <( .,- 17 :;E~ 18

55 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

3 I am employed in the county of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800, 4 Irvine, CA 92612. 5 On February 15, 2017, I served the following document described as THIRD AMENDED 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: (1) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; (2) NEGLIGENCE; (3) NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION; (4) NEGLIGENT 7 RETENTION/HIRING; (5) NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN, TRAIN OR EDUCATE; and (6) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. [Filed pursuant to C.C.P. § 340.1] DEMAND FOR 8 JURY TRIAL on the interested parties in this action. 9 [X] by placing [ ] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed 10 as follows:

11 SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST

12 [X] BY U.S. MAIL [ ] I deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage 13 fully prepaid. 800 800 [X] I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business UITE FINALDI S 14 practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing 92612 92612 ., &

VE correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and 9990 A - 15 mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in 252 ALIFORNIA ALIFORNIA

ARMAN ARMAN a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. K ,C

(949) 16 STEWART

ON [ ] BY MESSENGER SERVICE V RVINE I 17 [ ] I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the

19100 persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger service for MANLY, 18 service. [ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE 19 [ ] I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed above. [ ] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS DELIVERY - I caused such envelopes to be delivered via 20 Federal Express service with instructions to personally deliver same to offices of the addressee on the next business date. 21 [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 above is true and correct.

23 [ ] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at 24 whose direction the service was made. 25 Executed on February 15, 2017, at Irvine, California.

26 ______KATHY FREDERIKSEN 27 28

56 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

MAILING LIST 1 James Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, et al. 2 LASC Case No. BC545264

3 Howard Weitzman 4 Jonathan P. Steinsapir Katherine Kleindienst 5 KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT 808 Wilshire Boulevard, 3rd Floor 6 Santa Monica CA 90401 T: (310) 566-9800 7 F: (310) 566-9850 Email: [email protected] 8 [email protected] [email protected] 9 Counsel for Defendants MJJ Ventures, Inc. and MJJ Productions, Inc.

11 12 13 800 800 UITE FINALDI

S 14

92612 92612 ., &

VE 9990 A - 15 252 ALIFORNIA ALIFORNIA ARMAN ARMAN C

K ,

(949) 16 STEWART

ON ON V

RVINE I 17 19100 MANLY, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

57 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ______Executed at Irvine, onOctober 2,2020, California. made. was service the direction whose [ ] [ I oflaws declare perjuryof penalty thethat the Stateof under under California (State) correct. and true is above [X] the next date. business personally to instructions deliverwith Federal same service offices of to Express the [X] unsuccessful. theto persons onth [X] as follows: [X] AUTHORITIES AND COMPLAINT; AMENDED THIRD TO DEMURRER AND OPPOSITION SAFECHUCK’S JAMES PLAINTIFF I ofam Orange, employedI theof in county age California. 18and Stateof the am over Irvine, 92612. CA a19100Vonnot Karman is Ave., partyaddress action;business 800, themy to within Suite ORANGE OF COUNTY OF CALIFORNIA, STATE after the tran the after Executed at Irvine, onOctober 2,2020, California. ______f enclo byplacing [X] [ ] thecopy a original f thereo true (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of bar the of member a of office the in employed am I that declare I (Federal) DELIVERY EXPRESS FEDERAL BY E BY On October 2, 2020, I served the following document describedOctoberIas OF servedtheNOTICE document following 2,2020,

s - mis MAIL sion, anysion, electronic or message ot e e- e NSMISSIONTRA ELECTRONIC OR ma on the interested parties in this action. il add SEE ATTACHED MAILING LIST MAILING ATTACHED SEE ressesas listed PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF below. 1 - Idelivered caused suchbe to envelopes via her in her KATHY FREDERIKSEN KATHY KATHY FREDERIKSEN KATHY I did I dication that the tr MEMOR a reas a receive, not within sed in sealed envelopes addressed addressed envelopes sealed in sed I caused I OPPOSITION TO ANDUM ANDUM th to be sen be to e documents ansmission wasansmission OF POINTS POINTS OF addressee on on addressee this c nable time time onable ourt at t MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 252-9990 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Inc. Productions, Ventures,Inc.MJJ forMJJ Counsel and Defendants [email protected] [email protected] F (310)T: 566-9800 90401 CA Monica Santa 808 Wilshire3 Boulevard, ALDISERT & ISERKUMP WEITZMAN KINSELLA Kleindienst Katherine Jonathan Steinsapir P. Howard Email:

: (310) 566-9850 (310) 566-9850 [email protected] n n Weitzma

v. MJJ Productions, etProductions, al. v. MJJ Safechuck James Floor

LASC Case No. BC545264 MAILING LIST 2