Judge dismisses one accuser’s case against Michael Jackson’s companies

An attorney whose client says Michael Jackson sexually abused him as a child said he will appeal a Los Angeles County judge's ruling to throw out a revived lawsuit seeking to hold the late singer's production company liable.

"We are appealing this ruling, as we believe it ignores well-established California law and would set a dangerous precedent that leaves children unprotected," Vince Finaldi of Manly Stewart & Finaldi said in an email Wednesday. "The notion that these companies owed no duty to protect Mr. [James] Safechuck -- who was a young boy working for them at the time -- from a known pedophile, attempts to turn decades of child sexual abuse rulings and statutes on their head."

Jonathan P. Steinsapir and Howard L Weitzman of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert LLP, who represent Jackson's production companies -- MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures Inc. -- also responded Wednesday in email, saying: "We are pleased that the court agrees that Mr. Safechuck had no grounds to pursue his lawsuit."

Safechuck is one of two Jackson accusers featured in the HBO documentary "Leaving Neverland." Safechuck's complaint accuses the corporations of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and negligent supervision.

Los Angeles County Judge Mark A. Young said Safechuck did not present enough evidence to support claims that the production companies, of which Jackson was both the president and an employee, owed a duty of care to Safechuck. Nor did Young find that Safechuck established an in loco parentis relationship between him and MJJ productions that would require the companies to act "as a temporary guardian or caretaker of a child, taking on all or some of the responsibilities of a parent."

Safechuck's 2014 lawsuit against Jackson's companies was revived by a three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal earlier this year after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law extending the statute of limitations for alleged sex abuse victims.

In 2017, the corporations moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The trial court granted the motion because Safechuck filed his claims after his 26th birthday, and after the statute of limitations for such a claim passed.

However in January, the law was amended to allow a victim to bring claims of childhood sexual assault against third-party nonperpetrators until the victim's 40th birthday. James Safechuck v. Doe 1 et al., BC545264 (L.A. Sup. Ct., filed May 9, 2014).