Estate verklagt Tohme Tohme

Interessante Entwicklung in der Tohme-Klage gegen den Estate:
A Development in Tohme lawsuit against MJ Estate.

This will be an educated guess due to limited information available. So please bear with me.

I was checking the updates in the case and I saw this filing notice (sorry document not available yet)
Ich habe die Updates in dem Fall geprüft und ich sah diese Eingebung (sorry Dokument noch nicht verfügbar)

03/05/2012 Notice of Motion (TO STAY ENTIRE ACTION PENDING DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSY BY LABOR COMMISSIONER OF ISSUES ARISING UNDER THE TALENT AGENCIES ACT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION...)
Filed by Attorney for Defendant

So in short it seems like MJ Estate is asking the Tohme lawsuit against them to be put on hold until Labor Commissioner makes a determination about issues covered under the Talent Agencies Act.
So I wondered what is this Talent Agencies Act and found the law - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-…01-02000&file=1700-1700.4
Also kurz gesagt es scheint, das der MJ Estate erfragt das die Klage von Tohme gegen den Estate auf Eis gelegt werden, bis der Labour-Kommissar eine Prüfung über Fragen im Rahmen des Talent Agencies Act abgelegt hat.
Also fragte ich mich, was ist das Talent Agencies Act und fand das Gesetz -http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-…01-02000&file=1700-1700.4[/B]

So definition of Talent Agency is this

""Talent agency" means a person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment or engagements for an artist or artists, except that the activities of procuring, offering, or promising to procure recording contracts for an artist or artists shall not of itself subject a person or corporation to regulation and licensing under this chapter. Talent agencies may, in addition, counsel or direct artists in the development of their professional careers."

Then comes this rule
Dann kommt die Regel

1700.5. No person shall engage in or carry on the occupation of a talent agency without first procuring a license therefor from the Labor Commissioner.
1700.5. Niemand darf die Funktion einer Talent Agentur/Vermittlung einnehmen ohne zunächst eine Lizenz dafür vom Labor-Commissioner zu erhhalten.

The law goes on to explain how every talent agency should apply for a licence and how the labor commissioner will look to their background and so and determine whether to give them a licence or not. It also explains that the talent agency has to file a copy of the contract and the schedule of the fees to be charged with the Labor commissioner. It says that every things has to be recorded, it can be examined by Labor Commissioner, money for the artists has to be put into a trust and so on and so on. The goal is to make sure that artists aren't taken advantage by unqualified and/or people with not so good intentions.
Das Gesetz fährt fort zu erklären wie jeder Talent-Agent eine Lizenz beim Labor-Kommíssioner beantragen muss und wie dieser nach dem Hintergrund ermittelt um zu bestimmen ob er eine Lizenz erhält oder nicht. Es wird zudem gesagt das der Talent-Agent eine Kopie des Vertrages und den Zeitplan der Gebühren beim Labor Commissioner einzureichen hat. Es sagt, dass alles aufgezeichnet werden muss, es kann durch den Labor-Kommissioner überprüft werden, Geld für den Künstler muss unter einen Trust gefasst werden und so weiter. Das Ziel ist sicherzustellen das Künstler nicht von unqualifzierten Leuten und Leuten, die schlechte Absichten haben übers Ohr gehauen werden.

Then I looked to see previous lawsuits and found these examples
Dann schaute ich unter vorherigen Klagen und fand diese Beispiele

KE$HA SAYS FORMER MANAGER ACTED AS UNLICEN$ED TALENT AGENT - http://reporter.blogs.com/thre…ed-talent-agent.html#more
Kesha sagt früherer Manager agierte ohne Talent-Agent-Lizenz.

LADY GAGA COUNTERSUES, CLAIMS EX-BOYFRIEND WAS UNLICENSED TALENT AGENT - http://reporter.blogs.com/thre…music-producer-agent.html
Lady Gaga reichte eine Gegenklage gegen den Ex-freund ein, sagte er war nicht lizensiert

So what is my educated guess? MJ Estate if granted by the judge, plan to take this issue to the California Labor Commissioner and ask them to review and void / cancel Tohme's contract with Michael on the basis of Tohme wasn't a licensed Talent agency.
So es scheint. Der MJ Estate beabsichtigt wenn vom Gericht genehmigt dieses Thema zum Labor Commissioner zu geben und ihn zu bitten den Vertrag von Tohme mit MJ durchzusehen und diesen zu canceln auf der Basis das Tohme kein Talent-Agent war.

Some quotes about this law :
Zitate über das Gesetz.

"That's a big no-no in California, where only registered (and regulated) agents can "procure" work for clients, and the punishment for violating the Talent Agencies Act can be severe."
"Das ist eine großes no-go in Kalifornien, wo nur registrierte (und reguläre) Agenten die Arbeit für Kunden übernehmen dürfen und die Strafe wegen Verstoßes gegen das Talent Agencies Act können sehr schwerwiegend sein."

"The Talent Agencies Act is a particularly fierce weapon when deployed against managers, and even the smallest acts of procurement can cause a management agreement to be voided. "
Das Talent Agencies Act ist eine besonders heftige Waffe, wenn gegen Manager ermittelt wird und selbst die kleinsten Handlungen der Beschaffung kann dazu führen, eine Management-Vereinbarung für ungültig zu erklären."

Apparently this evaluation by Labor Commissioner can take some time. It's also important to note that there's a there's a supreme court decision that says such actions do not automatically mean voiding of the contract. They first divide the things that require a licence and the things that do not and then make a decision - so it can range from totally voiding a contract, voiding parts and voiding nothing. (link: http://farrisliterary.com/articles/t...onal-managers/)
Offensichtlich kann dies Auswertung von Labor-Kommissar einige Zeit dauern. Es ist auch wichtig zu beachten, dass es eine Entscheidung des Obersten Gerichtshofs gibt, die sagt solche Handlungen bedeuten nicht automatisch den Vertrag für ungültig zu erklären. Zuerst teilen sie die Dinge ein in die Dinge, die eine Lizenz erfordern und die Dinge, die dies nicht tun um dann eine Entscheidung zu treffen - so kann es rangieren darin in Verträge total für ungültig zu erklären, teilweise oder gar nicht.. (Link: http://farrisliterary.com/articles/the-california-talent-agencies-act-and-personal-managers/]

another interesting read:http://www.agentassociation.co…or/news_detail.cfm?id=306

Quelle: Ivy, MJJC

[COLOR="#0000CD"] Probate-Papers:[/COLOR]

Department LA 5 Court Convened at: 8:30:00 AM 3/28/2012
Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff
M. Dewey , Deputy County Clerk M. Manskar , Deputy Sheriff
Elizabeth Virgoe, CSR 11732 , Reporter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP117321 117 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr PROBATE - OTHER
Petitioner(s): Tohme, Tohme R., Dr.
Attorney(s): Malingagio, Paul S., Esq.
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:30:15 AM
Last Note Changed By: RWADA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To clear probate notes "filed documents" must be submitted to Rm 258, within time frames set forth in Rule 4.4(b) of LASC Rules. You may contact the Probate Attorney whose E-Mail address appears at the end of these notes, subject to compliance with all conditions governing the use of Interactive E-Mail. E-mail Rules are available in Rm 258 and on the Court's web site at www.LASuperiorCourt.org.

filed 3/8/12 - ex parte ok to file and set for

SUMMARY
Petnr is creditor
ATTY DECL FILED 3/8/12 - copy of civil action & probate petn attached

FACTS -
When it became clear that the personal representatives of the Jackson Estate were not going to resolve Petnr's meritorious claims, Petnr exercised his right to file a civil action for breach of contract and declaratory relief, seeking the just compensation as Jackson's manager to which he is entitled. On 2/1712, Petnr filed a civil action against the personal representatives of the Jackson Estate in the Superior Court, West District, Case No. SC 115988. On the same day, the Jackson Estate filed a Petition for Accounting, etc. against Petnr in the Jackson Estate probate proceeding, raising substantially the same issues as are raised in Petnr's Civil Lawsuit. Petnr's Civil Lawsuit was filed and served first and, pursuant to Probate Code Section 854, the Probate Petition should be abated so that the dispute between the parties may be resolved in the Civil Lawsuit.

MATTERS TO BE CLEARED - N/A
*********************************
OBJECTIONS FILED 3/8/12
OBJECTORS: JOHN BRANCA AND JOHN MCCLAIN
ATTYS: HOWARD WEITZMAN, ZIA MODABBER, JERYLL COHEN
*********************************
SUMMARY-OBJS
Objectors are co-extrs

FACTS-OBJS
There is no emergency requiring ex parte relief and Petnr has delayed bringing this application; Probate Code Section 854 is not applicable to this action. Probate Code Section 854 states:
"If a civil action is pending with respect to the subject matter of a petition filed pursuant to this chapter and jurisdiction has been obtained in the court where the civil action is pending prior to the filing of the petition, upon request of any party to the civil action, the court shall abate the petition until the conclusion of the civil action. This section shall not apply if the court finds that the civil action was filed for the purpose of delay."
Section 854 relief is not available here because (1) the Santa Monica Action was not pending at the time this petition was filed - this action was filed on the same day as the Santa Monica Action; (2) the Court in Santa Monica did not acquire jurisdiction prior to this action
being filed because it was not served on objectors until February 21, 2012; and (3) this action does not involve the identical "subject matter" as the Santa Monica Action. Petnr incorrectly contends that this action involves the same subject matter as the Santa Monica Action. Objectors are seeking an accounting from Petnr and allege in their First Cause of Action on information and belief that "Petnr, through his position as trusted advisor and fiduciary, took control and possession of Jackson's assets and wrongfully diverted and/or spent Jackson's funds and property for his own benefit, including for payment of Petnr's personal expenses, travel and entertainment. The amount that Respondent collected and disbursed is unknown to Executors and cannot be ascertained without an accounting. Objectors' Second and Third Causes of Action seek recovery of specific recovery that Petitioners are informed and believe that Petnr wrongfully took from Jackson. In contrast, according to Petnr, the Santa Monica Action involves Petnr's "contract claims against the Jackson Estate arising from three written agreements he had with Michael Jackson" Although there are some claims and allegations that overlap between this action and the Santa Monica Action, the only claims in this action that exclusively involve Probate Code Section 850 are Petitioners' First to Third Causes of Action, which are not at issue in the Santa Monica Action. In fact, the remedies provided by Probate Code Section 850 et seq. are not available in the non-probate court in Santa Monica. Thus, abating this action would materially impair Petitioners' ability to obtain an accounting and return of property by delaying these claim for at least over a year, or even more. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the two cases involve the same subject matter. Section 854 is therefore inapplicable and Petnr's application should be denied.

Fortsetzung nächster Post:

MATTERS TO BE CLEARED-OBJS - N/A

RELIEF
1. JTD order that the Jackson Estate's Probate Petition should be abated pending the outcome of Petnr's Civil Lawsuit;
2. JTD for a continuance of Petnr's obligation to respond to the Probate Petition until after this application for abatement may be heard
3. JTD OBJECTIONS - deny petn - Prob C Section 854 is not applicable

PROB ATTY COMMENTS: T/T
Rwada@lasuperiorcourt.org
RW (3/22)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:RELATED ITEMS: 138
Order to be Prepared By Clerk: Attorney:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department LA 5 Court Convened at: 8:30:00 AM 3/28/2012
Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff
M. Dewey , Deputy County Clerk M. Manskar , Deputy Sheriff
Elizabeth Virgoe, CSR 11732 , Reporter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP117321 138 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr WRONGFULLY TAKEN PROPERTY (PC 859)
Petitioner(s): Branca, John McClain, John
Attorney(s): Weitzman, Howard, Esq
Continuance Number: Continuance From:
Last Date Changed: Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:57:36 AM
Last Note Changed By: RWADA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To clear probate notes "filed documents" must be submitted to Rm 258, within time frames set forth in Rule 4.4(b) of LASC Rules. You may contact the Probate Attorney whose E-Mail address appears at the end of these notes, subject to compliance with all conditions governing the use of Interactive E-Mail. E-mail Rules are available in Rm 258 and on the Court's web site at www.LASuperiorCourt.org.

Filed 2/17/12

SUMMARY
Petnrs are co-extrs
ntc/copy to affected parties filed 2/28/12
spec ntc/copy filed 2/28/12

FACTS -
After being hired by Michael Jackson as his Personal Manager in early 2008, Respondent Tohme took control of virtually all of Jackson's personal and professional affairs, then did as he pleased. With no oversight or supervision, Tohme quickly set about to and did install a far-reaching and very lucrative financial package for himself obtained as a result of a manifest breach of his fiduciary duties. The package consisted of a series of agreements that were obtained without any arms length negotiations, and without Jackson having independent legal counsel or giving informed consent, and not surprisingly called for substantial and unfair financial compensation to Tohme. Left unchecked until he was terminated in or about March 2009 (but no later than April 14, 2009), Tohme used his powers as Jackson's fiduciary and agent to take possession of both money and valuable personal property belonging to Jackson that he never returned to Jackson or the Executors, or property accounted for. By this Petition, the Executors seek to undo the harm suffered by Jackson as a result of Tohme's breaches of fiduciary duty, obtain an accounting of all money, property and material entrusted to or taken by Tohme during his tenure and recover all money, property and other material belonging to the Estate. Alleges causes of action for wrongful taking, recission based on breach of fiduciary duty, unconscionability, undue influence, and for declaratory relief set forth below.

MATTERS TO BE CLEARED - N/A

********************************************
OBJECTIONS FILED 3/21/12
OBJECTOR: Tohme R. Tohme
ATTORNEY: Paul S. Malingagio
********************************************
SUMMARY-OBJS
Objector is creditor/claimant
svd 3/21/12

FACTS-OBJS
With Tohme's application for abatement and for an extension of time in which to respond to the Petition pending and is set to be heard on March 28, Tohme will reserve any further response to the Petition until after the court considers and rules on his application for an extension of time to respond to the Petition and/or his motion for abatement of the Petition pursuant to Probate Code Section 854. Tohme expressly reserves his right and ability to seek abatement of the Petition and, if ultimately necessary, to substantively respond to the Petition with a demurrer, a denial or other appropriate responsive pleading. Before this Petition was filed, prior to 9:00 a.m. on 2/17/12,
Tohme filed a complaint in the Superior Court against the Jackson Estate, asserting claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief regarding the very same contracts which are the subject of the Jackson Estate's Petition herein. Among other things, Tohme's Civil Action alleges that he is entitled to compensation pursuant to a Finder's Agreement for his services in locating financing to prevent the foreclosure of Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch real property and Michael Jackson's personal property. In addition, Tohme's Civil Action seeks compensation pursuant to a Services Agreement with Michael Jackson through which Tohme provided services as Michael Jackson's manager for a period of more than one year. Tohme was forced to file the Civil Action because the Jackson Estate refused to pay him, or even offer to pay him, any of the amounts to which he is entitled under these agreements. The Jackson Estate's Petition in this court clearly was filed as a "defensive" measure to the claims asserted in Tohme's Civil Action. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that the Finder's Agreement and Services Agreement are not enforceable, and that Tohme is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever for his work and services, for a variety of reasons, including that Michael Jackson allegedly "did not know what he was signing." The Petition is meritless and nothing more than an attempt by the Jackson Estate to further delay payment of the sums to which Tohme is rightfully entitled.

MATTERS TO BE CLEARED-OBJS - N/A

RELIEF
1. JTD order compelling Tohme to account for all monies and other property of Jackson's in his possession and control at any time, all monies and property of Jackson's misappropriated by Tohme, and all actions and transactions taken by Tohme with respect to Jackson's assets
2. JTD order directing Tohme to transfer, convey and deliver to the Executors all monies and other property belonging to Jackson or the Estate which he has in his possession or control
3. JTD for an award against Tohme in favor of the Estate in the amount of twice the value of all property wrongfully taken by Tohme
4. JTD for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, according to proof and for punitive damages
5. JTD for rescission of the Services Agreement, Finder Agreement and Indemnity Agreement and of any obligation thereunder to pay money to Tohme and for an order of restitution of any money or thing owing
6. JTD for rescission of the Services Agreement, Finder Agreement and Indemnity Agreement and of any obligation thereunder to pay money to Tohme and for an order of restitution of any money or thing owing
7. JTD for rescission of the Services Agreement, Finder Agreement and Indemnity Agreement and of any obligation thereunder to pay money to Tohme and for an order of restitution of any money or thing owing
8. JTD (a) Tohme is not entitled to commission any monies "received by" Jackson after Tohme was terminated (and certainly not on monies received after Jackson's death), (b) Tohme's "Services Agreement" is void or otherwise entitles him to no additional money, and (c) The Finder's Agreement entitles him to no further compensation and is void.
9. JTD for damages
10. JTD for interest on all amounts at the maximum legal rate,
11. JTD for an order imposing a constructive trust on all property wrongfully taken, concealed or disposed of by Tohme and all property traceable to property wrongfully taken, concealed or disposed of by Tohme
12. JTD for attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred herein
13. JTD OBJECTIONS - Tohme will reserve any further response to the Petition until after the court considers and rules on his
application for an extension of time to respond to the Petition and/or his motion for abatement of the Petition pursuant to Probate Code Section 854. Tohme expressly reserves his right and ability to seek abatement of the Petition and, if ultimately necessary, to substantively respond to the Petition with a demurrer, a denial or other appropriate responsive pleading.

PROB ATTY COMMENTS: see related ex parte filed o/w contested matters
Rwada@lasuperiorcourt.org
RW (3/22)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:RELATED ITEMS: 117
Order to be Prepared By Clerk: Attorney:

Aus den beiden Vorgängerposts geht ja hervor, dass der Estate beim Nachlassgericht Offenlegung von Tohmes Buchhaltung und die Rückgabe von Besitz gefordert hat.
Tohme reichte jedoch eine vollkommen separate Klage beim Zivilgericht ein um dort seine Geldforderungen und die Offenlegung der Buchhaltung des Estates durchzusetzen.
Somit haben 2 verschiedene Gerichte einen Blick auf das Ganze geworfen.
An diesem Mittwoch entschieden die Gerichte, dass die Ansprüche vor dem Nachlassgericht zu entscheiden sind. Somit leitet das Zivligericht alles über Tohme`s Klage zu Beckloff an das Nachlassgericht.
Würde mal sagen ein Punktsieg für den Estate.

Und das sind die nächsten Anhörungstermine vor dem Nachlassgericht:
[/B]04/12/2012 at 10:00 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
WRONGFULLY TAKEN PROPERTY (PC 859)

04/12/2012 at 10:00 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
PROBATE - OTHER

Es ist ja eine Anhörung vor dem Nachlassgericht am 12. April angesetzt. Das Gericht macht sich bereit die Argumente von MJ- Estate zu hören jedoch erhebt Tohme Einspruch das sein Fall zum Nachlassgericht übertragen wird. So bevor jede Anhörung über die MJ-Estate-Klagepunkte beginnt fragt er den Richter an seinen Antrag zu hören, den Fall wieder zurück vor dem Zivilgericht zurückzubringen oder er fragt das Gericht an ihm Zeit zu geben um die Behauptungen des MJ-Estates mit einer Gegenstellungnahme zu beantworten.
-
-------------------------------------------
BP117321 306 JACKSON, MICHAEL JOSEPH - DECEDENT
Letters of Administr
PROBATE - OTHER

Petitioner(s): Tohme, Tohme R., Dr.

Attorney(s): Malingagio, Paul S., Esq.

Continuance Number: 1 Continuance From: Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Last Date Changed: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:58:33 AM

L
PRIOR ORDER: Cont to 4/12/12 <@10:00 a.m.>

filed 3/8/12 - ex parte ok to file and set for

SUMMARY
Petnr is creditor
ATTY DECL FILED 3/8/12 - copy of civil action & probate petn attached

FACTS -
When it became clear that the personal representatives of the Jackson Estate were not going to resolve Petnr's meritorious claims, Petnr exercised his right to file a civil action for breach of contract and declaratory relief, seeking the just compensation as Jackson's manager to which he is entitled. On 2/1712, Petnr filed a civil action against the personal representatives of the Jackson Estate in the Superior Court, West District, Case No. SC 115988. On the same day, the Jackson Estate filed a Petition for Accounting, etc. against Petnr in the Jackson Estate probate proceeding, raising substantially the same issues as are raised in Petnr's Civil Lawsuit. Petnr's Civil Lawsuit was filed and served first and, pursuant to Probate Code Section 854, the Probate Petition should be abated so that the dispute between the parties may be resolved in the Civil Lawsuit.

MATTERS TO BE CLEARED - N/A
*********************************
OBJECTIONS FILED 3/8/12
OBJECTORS: JOHN BRANCA AND JOHN MCCLAIN
ATTYS: HOWARD WEITZMAN, ZIA MODABBER, JERYLL COHEN
*********************************
SUMMARY-OBJS
Objectors are co-extrs

FACTS-OBJS
There is no emergency requiring ex parte relief and Petnr has delayed bringing this application; Probate Code Section 854 is not applicable to this action. Probate Code Section 854 states:
"If a civil action is pending with respect to the subject matter of a petition filed pursuant to this chapter and jurisdiction has been obtained in the court where the civil action is pending prior to the filing of the petition, upon request of any party to the civil action, the court shall abate the petition until the conclusion of the civil action. This section shall not apply if the court finds that the civil action was filed for the purpose of delay."
Section 854 relief is not available here because (1) the Santa Monica Action was not pending at the time this petition was filed - this action was filed on the same day as the Santa Monica Action; (2) the Court in Santa Monica did not acquire jurisdiction prior to this action
being filed because it was not served on objectors until February 21, 2012; and (3) this action does not involve the identical "subject matter" as the Santa Monica Action. Petnr incorrectly contends that this action involves the same subject matter as the Santa Monica Action. Objectors are seeking an accounting from Petnr and allege in their First Cause of Action on information and belief that "Petnr, through his position as trusted advisor and fiduciary, took control and possession of Jackson's assets and wrongfully diverted and/or spent Jackson's funds and property for his own benefit, including for payment of Petnr's personal expenses, travel and entertainment. The amount that Respondent collected and disbursed is unknown to Executors and cannot be ascertained without an accounting. Objectors' Second and Third Causes of Action seek recovery of specific recovery that Petitioners are informed and believe that Petnr wrongfully took from Jackson. In contrast, according to Petnr, the Santa Monica Action involves Petnr's "contract claims against the Jackson Estate arising from three written agreements he had with Michael Jackson." Although there are some claims and allegations that overlap between this action and the Santa Monica Action, the only claims in this action that exclusively involve Probate Code Section 850 are Petitioners' First to Third Causes of Action, which are not at issue in the Santa Monica Action. In fact, the remedies provided by Probate Code Section 850 et seq. are not available in the non-probate court in Santa Monica. Thus, abating this action would materially impair Petitioners' ability to obtain an accounting and return of property by delaying these claim for at least over a year, or even more. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the two cases involve the same subject matter. Section 854 is therefore inapplicable and Petnr's application should be denied.

MATTERS TO BE CLEARED-OBJS - N/A

RELIEF
1. JTD order that the Jackson Estate's Probate Petition should be abated pending the outcome of Petnr's Civil Lawsuit;
2. JTD for a continuance of Petnr's obligation to respond to the Probate Petition until after this application for abatement may be heard
3. JTD OBJECTIONS - deny petn - Prob C Section 854 is not applicable

-----------------------------------------------------------

WRONGFULLY TAKEN PROPERTY (PC 859)

Petitioner(s): Branca, John McClain, John

Attorney(s): Weitzman, Howard, Esq

Continuance Number: 1 Continuance From: Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Last Date Changed: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:59:13 AM

PRIOR ORDER: Cont to 4/12/12 <@10:00 a.m. NLT 4/5/12, Mr. Malingagio is to file a response>
Filed 2/17/12

SUMMARY
Petnrs are co-extrs
ntc/copy to affected parties filed 2/28/12
spec ntc/copy filed 2/28/12

FACTS -
After being hired by Michael Jackson as his Personal Manager in early 2008, Respondent Tohme took control of virtually all of Jackson's personal and professional affairs, then did as he pleased. With no oversight or supervision, Tohme quickly set about to and did install a far-reaching and very lucrative financial package for himself obtained as a result of a manifest breach of his fiduciary duties. The package consisted of a series of agreements that were obtained without any arms length negotiations, and without Jackson having independent legal counsel or giving informed consent, and not surprisingly called for substantial and unfair financial compensation to Tohme. Left unchecked until he was terminated in or about March 2009 (but no later than April 14, 2009), Tohme used his powers as Jackson's fiduciary and agent to take possession of both money and valuable personal property belonging to Jackson that he never returned to Jackson or the Executors, or property accounted for. By this Petition, the Executors seek to undo the harm suffered by Jackson as a result of Tohme's breaches of fiduciary duty, obtain an accounting of all money, property and material entrusted to or taken by Tohme during his tenure and recover all money, property and other material belonging to the Estate. Alleges causes of action for wrongful taking, recission based on breach of fiduciary duty, unconscionability, undue influence, and for declaratory relief set forth below.

zu lang. Es geht weiter im nächsten Post

MATTERS TO BE CLEARED - N/A

********************************************
OBJECTIONS FILED 3/21/12
OBJECTOR: Tohme R. Tohme
ATTORNEY: Paul S. Malingagio
********************************************
SUMMARY-OBJS
Objector is creditor/claimant
svd 3/21/12

FACTS-OBJS
With Tohme's application for abatement and for an extension of time in which to respond to the Petition pending and is set to be heard on March 28, Tohme will reserve any further response to the Petition until after the court considers and rules on his application for an extension of time to respond to the Petition and/or his motion for abatement of the Petition pursuant to Probate Code Section 854. Tohme expressly reserves his right and ability to seek abatement of the Petition and, if ultimately necessary, to substantively respond to the Petition with a demurrer, a denial or other appropriate responsive pleading. Before this Petition was filed, prior to 9:00 a.m. on 2/17/12,
Tohme filed a complaint in the Superior Court against the Jackson Estate, asserting claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief regarding the very same contracts which are the subject of the Jackson Estate's Petition herein. Among other things, Tohme's Civil Action alleges that he is entitled to compensation pursuant to a Finder's Agreement for his services in locating financing to prevent the foreclosure of Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch real property and Michael Jackson's personal property. In addition, Tohme's Civil Action seeks compensation pursuant to a Services Agreement with Michael Jackson through which Tohme provided services as Michael Jackson's manager for a period of more than one year. Tohme was forced to file the Civil Action because the Jackson Estate refused to pay him, or even offer to pay him, any of the amounts to which he is entitled under these agreements. The Jackson Estate's Petition in this court clearly was filed as a "defensive" measure to the claims asserted in Tohme's Civil Action. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that the Finder's Agreement and Services Agreement are not enforceable, and that Tohme is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever for his work and services, for a variety of reasons, including that Michael Jackson allegedly "did not know what he was signing." The Petition is meritless and nothing more than an attempt by the Jackson Estate to further delay payment of the sums to which Tohme is rightfully entitled.

MATTERS TO BE CLEARED-OBJS - N/A

RELIEF
1. JTD order compelling Tohme to account for all monies and other property of Jackson's in his possession and control at any time, all monies and property of Jackson's misappropriated by Tohme, and all actions and transactions taken by Tohme with respect to Jackson's assets
2. JTD order directing Tohme to transfer, convey and deliver to the Executors all monies and other property belonging to Jackson or the Estate which he has in his possession or control
3. JTD for an award against Tohme in favor of the Estate in the amount of twice the value of all property wrongfully taken by Tohme
4. JTD for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, according to proof and for punitive damages
5. JTD for rescission of the Services Agreement, Finder Agreement and Indemnity Agreement and of any obligation thereunder to pay money to Tohme and for an order of restitution of any money or thing owing
6. JTD for rescission of the Services Agreement, Finder Agreement and Indemnity Agreement and of any obligation thereunder to pay money to Tohme and for an order of restitution of any money or thing owing
7. JTD for rescission of the Services Agreement, Finder Agreement and Indemnity Agreement and of any obligation thereunder to pay money to Tohme and for an order of restitution of any money or thing owing
8. JTD (a) Tohme is not entitled to commission any monies "received by" Jackson after Tohme was terminated (and certainly not on monies received after Jackson's death), (b) Tohme's "Services Agreement" is void or otherwise entitles him to no additional money, and (c) The Finder's Agreement entitles him to no further compensation and is void.
9. JTD for damages
10. JTD for interest on all amounts at the maximum legal rate,
11. JTD for an order imposing a constructive trust on all property wrongfully taken, concealed or disposed of by Tohme and all property traceable to property wrongfully taken, concealed or disposed of by Tohme
12. JTD for attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred herein
13. JTD OBJECTIONS - Tohme will reserve any further response to the Petition until after the court considers and rules on his
application for an extension of time to respond to the Petition and/or his motion for abatement of the Petition pursuant to Probate Code Section 854. Tohme expressly reserves his right and ability to seek abatement of the Petition and, if ultimately necessary, to substantively respond to the Petition with a demurrer, a denial or other appropriate responsive pleading.

Tohme has a "motion to compel deposition" - probably the executors. There's a competing "motion to stay" - probably coming from Executors asking for to delay it or wait for something. Judge will look to motion to delay / motion to compel deposition next week.
Judge ordered both sides to meet and confer about accounting.
Then he ordered Tohme to file accounting from the time he became a management (but sealed it)
Then he ordered (probably the Executors) to file the correspondence they had with IRS about Michael (probably about unpaid taxes for 3 years) again under seal.
Judge then ordered both sides to talk and submit an update to court about the discovery - information collection among both parties.

This just shows us the brief information about what has been going on in this regard.

Tohme hat einen "Antrag auf Vernehmung erzwingen" - wahrscheinlich gegndie Vollstrecker gestellt. Es gibt einen konkurrierenden "Antrag zu bleiben" - wahrscheinlich von den Verwaltern, die erfragen eine Verzögerung oder warten auf etwas. Richter wird auf beide Anträge nächste Woche schauen.
Richter ordnete beide Seiten sich zu treffen und über die Buchhaltung zu konferieren.
Dann ordnete er Tohme an eine Rechnungsoffenlegung von der Zeit wo er Manager war vorzulegen (aber es ist versiegelt)
Dann ordnete er (wahrscheinlich den Verwaltern) an die Korrespondenz, die sie mit IRS hatten über Michael (wahrscheinlich unbezahlte Steuern von 3 Jahren), wieder versiegelt, einzureichen.
Richter befahl beiden Seiten miteinander zu sprechen und eine Aktualisierung vor Gericht über die Aufdeckungen von Informationen zwischen den beiden Parteien zu geben.

Dies zeigt uns nur die kurze Informationen über das was geht schon in dieser Hinsicht.

hat Ivy, MJJC hieraus erlesen/gedeutet:

MOTION - COMPEL DEPOSITION

Petitioner(s): Tohme, Tohme R., Dr.

Attorney(s): Malingagio, Paul S., Esq.

MOTION CONTINUED TO 10/25/12 TO MEET MOTION TO STAY

--------------------

Tohme is trying to depose someone - probably the Executors, the following is the other ongoing stuff

--------------------------------------

WRONGFULLY TAKEN PROPERTY (PC 859)

Petitioner(s): Branca, John McClain, John

Attorney(s): Weitzman, Howard, Esq

PRIOR ORDER: Cont to 10/17/12 Counsel submit on discovery issue, Motion to compel will be continuned from 10/17/12 to 10/25/12 10:00 a.m. to meet Motion to stay. NLT 11/21/12 counsel ordered to lodge with the court under seal correspondence provided to IRS re: Michael Jackson . Mr. Tohme is to account from time managrement agreements were signed going forward and is to file a motion to seal; 9/27/12 at 10:00 am R/; 8/30/12 counsel ordered to meet and confer on accounting issues with Dr. Tohme; 8/1/12; 7/25/12 at 10:00 am; 6/7/12 at 10:00 am notice waived; 4/30/12 @ 8:30 a.m.; 4/12/12 @10:00 a.m. NLT 4/5/12, Mr. Malingagio is to file a response
Filed 2/17/12

01/30/2013 at 10:00 am in department 5 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
WRONGFULLY TAKEN PROPERTY (PC 859) (MR. TOHME'S ACCTG TO BE FILED NLT11/21/12 AND SET FOR HRG ON1/30/13 AT 10:00 A.M.)

Scheint das Tohme angeordnet wurde seine Buchhaltung offen zu legen nicht später als bis zum 21.11.2012 und die Anhörung dazu zum 30.01.2013 angesetzt ist.

Tohme hat eine Verlängerung der Frist für seine Buchhaltungsoffenlegung beantragt

Estate sues Tohme Tohme / Tohme countersues / Tohme's complaint @pg 14

11/21/2012 Request (RESPONDENT TOHME R. TOHME'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION ON ACCTNG. )
Filed by Attorney for Respondent

Wenn ich das richtig verstehe, sind das hier erste Updates von Ivy von der Anhörung(?):

http://translate.google.com/tr…ttp://twitter.com/Ivy_4MJ

Vielleicht kann ja jemand von unsere Übersetzungsfeen, die Tweets in ein verständliches deutsch bringen oder eine kurze Zusammenfassung geben.
Ich mag hier nicht meine Vermutungen äußern. Jedenfalls hört es sich für mich nicht schlecht an.

Zitat von Maike

Wenn ich das richtig verstehe, sind das hier erste Updates von Ivy von der Anhörung(?):

Es sind keine updates, sondern sie hat nur noch mal die Bestandteile der Klage, um was es hier geht wiederholt.

Von derzeitigen Anhörungen erfahren derzeit nicht viel, sondern ersehen immer nur die Termine. Da die Klage vor dem Nachlassgericht stattfindet sind die Gerichtspapiere nicht online abrufbar, man muss sie vor Gericht als Person beantragen. Somit erfahren wir wenig, es sei denn die Presse berichtet oder Fans gehen tatsälich vor Ort ins Gericht beantragen die Papiere gegen Gebühr und holen sie ab (ein sehr mühsames Verfahren). Hinzu kommt noch, dass nicht alles einsehbar sein wird, aktuell z.b. hat Tohme die Versiegelung seiner Buchhaltung beantragt.

, liebe LenaLena!
Ich bin von diesem Tweet ausgegangen :
Ivy @ Ivy_4MJ
Machen Sie sich bereit für einige Tohme - MJ Immobilien Updates. (Weil ich sehe einige Fehlinformationen die Runde macht)

Also, kurz nix Neues!

Aktuell ersichtlich : Estate möchte Tohme unter Eid befragen

03/06/2013 Reply/Response (IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DEPOSITION OF RESPONDENT TOHME R. TOHME ) Filed by Attorney for Petitioner

Intressant, dass es offensichtlich das Labor Comissioner-Verfahren noch nicht abgeschlossen bzw. evtl. vor dem Abschluss steht. Im Post 41 ist beschrieben was der Estate mit der Prüfung von der Kommission bezweckt.

12/13/2013 Miscellaneous-Other (STATUS REPORT RE: DEPOSITION OF JOHN MCCLAIN, AND LABOR COMMISSIONER PROCEEDING )
Filed by Attorney for Petitioner
(Status Report: Deposition von MCCLAIN und Voranschreiten des Labor Commissioner-Verfahrens)

Auszug aus einem aktuellen Artikel indem es um die Absegung des 3. Geschäftsberichtes vom Estate von Seiten des Nachlassgerichtes geht. Daraus hervorgehend, dass der Estate rund 2, Mio. Rechtskosten im Jahr 2013 hatte. Davon ging der größte Teil (allein knapp 1 MIo.) in die weiterandauernde Klage gegen Jacksons ehemaligen Manger Tohme:

The largest fee request is Katten Muchin's, which will receive more than $1.1 million. The lion's share of that work is the estate's ongoing litigation to void agreements Jackson's former manager, Tohme R. Tohme, obtained before the pop star's death, which accounted for $917,919 of the total fees.

That suit, filed in February 2012, alleged Tohme persuaded Jackson to sign a series of deals that guaranteed compensation and rights far beyond the norm of a personal manager. Jackson's executors John Branca and John McClain asked the court to declare these agreements void and to force Tohme to account for the money and property that he took from Jackson when he was the pop icon's personal manager from early 2008 until a few months before Jackson's June 25, 2009, death.
Die Klage, die im Februar 2012 eingereicht wurde klagt Tohme an, dass er Jackson dazu brauchte Deals zu unterzeichen, die Tohme garantierte Einahmen und Rechte weit über das normale Maß als Manager hinaus zu gewähren. John Branca and John McClain erfragen das Gericht diese Agreements für ungültig zu erklären und zwingen Tohme das Geld und den Besitz den er von Jackson nahm als er sein Manager von den frühen 2008er an bis zu den Monaten vor seinem Tod im Juni 2009 zurückzugeben.

Among these agreements was a document guaranteeing Tohme a fee of $35,000 per month plus expenses, according to the suit. In addition, the deal provided Tohme with 15 percent of all gross compensation received by Jackson for his services in the entertainment industry, including live performances, merchandising and recorded as well as live telecasts, the suit said.
Unter diesen Vereinbarungen war ein Dokument das Tohme ein Gehalt von 35000 Dollar im Monat garantierte, plus weitere Ausgaben. Zusätzlich wurde Tohme in dem Deal ein 15%-Anteil aller Einahmen von Jackson garantiert, für seine Leistungen in der Entertainment-Industrie, beinhaltend Live-Performances, Merchandising, Plattenverkäufen und Livesendungen.

http://www.law360.com/articles…-to-katten-venable-others

Stelle den Artikel im Ganzen noch in den Estate-Management-Berichtsthread ein.

Update von Ivy:
http://www.dailymichael.com/la…e-v-tohme-lawsuit-updates
MJ Estate v. Tohme lawsuit updates

Category: Estate v. Tohme
Published: Thursday, 11 September 2014 15:43
Hits: 235

September 2014

After 2 years we have some new information about MJ Estate vs Tohme lawsuits.

As you might remember Tohme filed a complaint against MJ Estate asking for fees he’s owed. These were 10% from Neverland refinancing, 10% from any future transaction about Neverland, 15% of income from services he provided (plus interest when applicable). Details of Tohme’s complaint can be found here: http://dailymichael.com/lawsui…mplaint-against-mj-estate

Estate had also filed a complaint against Tohme asking for accounting all actions and transactions done by Tohme, return of any money and property (of Michael) Tohme has and cancellation of the three agreements Michael had with Tohme. Details of Estate’s complaint can be found here: http://dailymichael.com/lawsui…e-complaint-against-tohme

Nach 2 Jahren haben wir einige neue Informationen über MJ-Estate vs Tohme Klagen.

Wie Ihr Euch erinnert hat Tohme eine Klage gegen MJ-Estate eingereicht und fordert Gebühren, die er ihm schuldet. Dies waren 10% von der Neverland Refinanzierung, 10% von jeder künftigen Transaktion von Neverland, 15% der Erträge aus Dienstleistungen, die er zur Verfügung gestellt hat (zuzüglich Zinsen, wenn zutreffend). Details der Klage von Tohme hier http://dailymichael.com/lawsui…eschwerde-gegen-mj-estate

Tohme and Michael had 3 agreements:

Finder’s fee agreement that give Tohme 10% of Neverland loan amount, 10% from any future sale of Neverland and 10% from any future transaction with Colony Capital.
Services agreement which gave Tohme $35,000+ expenses per month and 15% all gross compensation received by Michael.
Indemnity agreement in which Michael agrees to compensate Tohme for professional and legal expenses.

The most recent September 2014 court filing has shown that court has separated all of the claims from both parties into two parts. Probate court has been hearing accounting and return of property requests where as Labor commissioner has been overseeing whether or not the 3 agreements between Michael and Tohme should be cancelled.

Tohme und Michael hatten 3 Vereinbarungen:

Vermittlungsprovision- Vereinbarung,10% vom Neverland-Darlehen,10% von jedem zunküftigen Verkauf von Neverland, 10% jeder der zukünftigen Transaktion mit Colony Capital Dienstleistungsvertrag, der Tohme $ 35.000 + Aufwendungen gab pro Monat und 15% aller Bruttobezüge von Michael. Haftungsabkommen, in dem Michael sich bereit erklärt hat Tohmes professionelle und Anwaltskosten auszugleichen.

Die letzte Einreichung von September 2014 zwigt, dass das Gericht alle Ansprüche von beiden Parteien in zwei Teile getrennt hat. Nachlassgericht hört die Buchhaltungsbelegung und Rückgabe von Eigentums- Anfragen und der Labor-Kommissar hat die Aufsicht darüber, ob die 3 Vereinbarungen, die zwischen Michael Tohme abgesprochen waren gecancelt werden sollen.

Probate court proceedings about accounting and return of property requests
Nachlassgerichtsvorgehen über Buchhaltung und Rückgabe von Eigentumsanfragen

A transcript from a hearing on June, 2012 shows Executors arguing they need accounting from Tohme for the years he was manager in order to file Estate tax with IRS properly. Probate notes showed several hearings and protective orders concerning the accounting request.
Eine Mitschrift von einer Anhörung im Juni 2012 zeigt, dass Testamentsvollstrecker argumentieren sie müssen die Bilanzierung von Tohme für die Jahre, die er Manager war haben , um Idie Steuer für die IRS richtig einzureichen. Probate- Notizen zeigten mehrere Anhörungen und Schutzaufträge, für die Bilanzierungsanfragen.

Return of property request is still ongoing. Tohme’s lawyers complain about not being able to depose co-executor McClain to date. Documents show McClain’s health issues are the reason Why he isn’t deposed yet. The same June 2012 hearing transcript and a short mention of Branca’s deposition clarifies Estate’s “return of property” claims. Branca mentions a private investigator being hired. Weitzman in hearing states Estate wants to know “where all the money went and how it was spent” and “there’s property Tohme got has yet to be returned”. Weitzman also states that they know someone who was supposed to pay Michael directly paid to Tohme and coincidentally Tohme purchased houses just after Michael passed away. They want discovery of all accounts managed by Tohme, where the money come from and where it went.

Rückgabe von Eigentums- Anfrage ist noch nicht abgeschlossen. Tohme -Anwälte beschweren sich daüber, dass sie nicht in der Lage waren eine Depostion mit Testamentsvollstrecker McClain bisher vorzunehmen. Dokumente zeigen, Gesundheitsprobleme von McClain sind der Grund, warum er diese noch nicht abgesetzt hat. Die gleiche Juni 2012 Anhörungs -Transkript zeigt eine kurze Erwähnung von Brancas Deposition und klärt Estate "Rückgabe von Eigentum" Ansprüche. Branca erwähnt, dass sie einen Privatdetektiv angeheuert haben. Weitzman sagt in der Anhörung, dass der Estate wissen will, "wo das ganze Geld hin ging und wie es ausgegeben wurde" und "es gibt Eigentums das Tohme immer noch zurückgegeben muss." Weitzman stellt auch fest, dass sie jemanden kennen, der angeblich bestimmt war an Michael direkt zu zahlen, zahlte an Tohme und zufällig kaufte Tohme Häsuer kurz nachdem Michael starb. Sie wollen die Aufdeckung aller Konten von Tohme, wo das Geld herkommt und wohin es ging.

Labor commissioner proceedings about cancellation of 3 agreements

MJ Estate had filed a petition with Labor Commissioner based on California’s Talent Agency act. This act requires talent agents to be licensed. Estate argued as Tohme was unlicensed the agreements between him and Michael should be cancelled. LA Superior Court agreed this is a matter to be decided by Labor Commissioner.

This most recent filing states that the final hearing in front of the Labor Commissioner was in October 2013 and the closing briefs were submitted in November 2013. Almost a year later there’s still no decision from Labor Commissioner.

However Tohme’s lawyers claim the hearings in front of the Labor Commissioner has showed that while they have jurisdiction over the management agreements, they have no jurisdiction over the finder’s fee agreement about Neverland. So Tohme’s lawyers now asking LA Superiour court to take over the finder’s fee agreement issue put it on calendar and even make a summary judgment decision in favor of Tohme that the finder's fee agreement is valid and binding.

As of May 2014 the 10% Neverland loan + 10% interest equals $3.9 Million. Tohme asks a judgment for this amount. He also asks the court to determine that Tohme is entitled to 10% from future transactions about Neverland (which includes loan buyout and sale of Neverland).

An hearing is set for October 6, 2014.

Labor-Commissioner- Verfahren über Stornierung von 3 Vereinbarungen

MJ Estate hatte eine Petition eingereicht mit dem Labor-Kommissar auf der Grundlage der kalifornischen Talent Agency. Dieser Akt erfordert das Talent-Agenten lizenziert sein müssen. Estate argumentiert, da Tohme nicht lizensiert war sollten die Vereinbarungen zwischen ihm und Michael aufgehoben werden. LA Superior Court stimmte zu, dass dies eine Frage ist, die vom Labor-Kommissar entschieden werden. soll.

Diese jüngsten Einreichung besagt, dass die abschließende Anhörung vor dem Labor-Kommissar im Oktober 2013 und die Schlussschriftsätze im November 2013 vorgelegt wurden. Fast ein Jahr später gibt es immer noch keine Entscheidung vom Labor-Kommissar.

Allerdings behaupten Tohmes Anwälte, dass die Anhörungen vor dem Labor-Kommissar gezeigt haben, dass, während er die Gerichtsbarkeit über die Managementverträge hat, er keine Gerichtsbarkeit über die Vermittlungsprovision -Vereinbarung über Neverland hat. So Tohmes Anwälte fragen nun das das LA Superiour Gericht die Honorarvereinbarung für den Neverland-Deal auf Kalendernimmt und eine summarisches Urteils- Entscheidung für Tohme fällt, dass die Honorarvereinbarung gültig und bindend ist.

Ab Mai 2014 10% Neverland-Darlehen + 10% Zinsen entspricht $ 3,9 Millionen. Tohme erfragt ein Urteil für diesen Betrag. Er erfragt auch das das Gericht feststellt, dass Tohme auch 10% aus zukünftigen Transaktionen von Neverland berechtigt ist (sowohl falls das Darlehen abgekauft wird als auch den Verkauf von Neverland umfasst).

Eine Anhörung ist für den 6. Oktober 2014 festgelegt.

Hier ist ein kleines update von Ivy:
wie bekannt hat der Estate ja die Labor Commission eingeschaltet mit dem Ziel zu klären, dass Tohme keine Californ. Talent Agency hat und dies dann zur Cancellung seiner abgeschlossen Verträge mit MJ führen könnte. Es wird noch auf eine Entscheidung der Labor Commission gewartet, diese soll aber in den kommenden 3 Monaten fallen.

In einem anderen Prozess hat der Estate von Tohme verlangt, dass er seine komplette Buchhaltung offenlegt, Geld und Besitztümer, die er von Michael hat zurückgibt.
Hier ist die Depostion vom Verwalter McClain ein Streitpunkt seit einem Jahr.
Hintergrund: Tohme wollte eine Depostion von beiden Verwaltern. Die von Branca fand statt im Dezember 2012. Branca sagte aus, dass er nicht aus erster Hand weiß, dass Tohme Besitz und Geld von Michael nahm, sondern dies aus den Ermittlungen eines eingesetzten Privatdediktivs hervorgeht. Die Depostion von McClain wurde mehrfach gecancelt auf Grund seiner Probleme mit hohem Blutdruck. Tohme stellte einen Antrag die Aussage von McClain zu erzwingen. Estate schlug vor Tohme könne die Fragen schriftlich einreichen und McClain werde schriftlich antworten. Gericht schlug eine Depostion vor wo McClains Arzt und ein Schiedsrichter anwesend ist, der die Vernehmung stoppen könne falls notwendig. Estate lehnte ab, will kein gesundheitliches Risiko für McClain, sagte auch McClain hat Tohme nie getroffen, hat ebenfalls keine erste Hand-Informationen.
Aus einer Anhörung geht hervor, dass der Estate einen Antrag stellte, dass Branca alleine in diesem Fall den Estate weiter vertreten werde.
Tohme ist dagegen und erfragt das Gericht die Klage zu verwerfen, wenn McClain nicht für eine Depostion zur Verfügung steht. Nächster Termin zu dieser Angelegenheit 15 . Januar 2015.

http://www.dailymichael.com/la…e-case-mcclain-deposition
MJ Estate v. Tohme case: McClain deposition
Details
Category: Estate v. Tohme
Published: Friday, 19 December 2014 15:53
Hits: 48

As you might know MJ Estate and Tohme have filed competing lawsuits against each other in 2012.

Tohme sued MJ Estate asking for fees he’s owed. These were 10% from Neverland refinancing, 10% from any future transaction about Neverland, 15% of income from services he provided (plus interest when applicable). Estate filed a petition with Labor Commissioner based on California’s Talent Agency act to cancel three agreements MJ had with Tohme. Parties are still waiting for the decision of Labor Commissioner.

In another lawsuit MJ Estate sued Tohme asking for accounting all actions and transactions done by Tohme, return of any money and property (of Michael) in Tohme’s possession. This lawsuit has been ongoing in probate court. Executor McClain’s deposition is a dispute parties have been trying to solve for over a year.

Here is some background information: Tohme wanted to depose MJ Estate Executors about their claims against him. John Branca was deposed in December 2012. In his deposition Branca said he doesn’t have any firsthand knowledge of the allegations that Tohme took money and property from MJ. Branca said his information came from a report of a private investigator. McClain’s deposition has been cancelled several times due to spikes to his blood pressure (high blood pressure). Tohme filed a motion to compel McClain to sit for a deposition. Judge said McClain’s medial info provided to the parties was too general or sometimes no medical information was provided for cancelled depositions.

MJ Estate has suggested an alternative way to depose McClain through a written deposition where Tohme sends his questions and McClain provides written answers. Court suggested a deposition where McClain’s doctor and a discovery referee present and stop the deposition if needed. Estate hasn’t agreed with that as they don’t want McClain to experience any health issues during a deposition. They also argue that McClain hasn’t even met Tohme, has no direct information, he surely doesn’t know anything different/more than Branca and actually he knows less than Branca.

During a hearing it was brought up by court that perhaps Branca can be allowed to pursue the lawsuit against Tohme on his own. Tohme was against this. They disagreed with Estate’s written deposition offer and asked the judge to even dismiss Estate’s case against Tohme if McClain doesn’t sit for his deposition.

This resulted in oppositions and answers from MJ Estate. First according to court case summary McClain’s medical information was filed with the court and it was sealed. This sealing is not surprising (or a conspiracy) given that in United States HIPAA protects confidentiality of medical information of individuals. Second Estate filed a 9630 motion asking Judge to allow Branca to act alone in Estate’s complaint against Tohme. This document is also filed conditionally under seal as it is referring to McClain’s private and confidential medical condition. The rest of the documents consisting of thousands of pages are publicly available.

Tohme is opposing Estate’s motion. Tohme lawyers argue McClain cannot be selectively removed from one aspect of being an Executor; he must be completely removed as an Executor or not at all. Estate and Tohme’s competing motions in this regard have been filed starting September 2014. A hearing was initially set for December 17, 2014 but now delayed to January 15, 2015.

Now for my personal take on this subject: While I respect Tohme’s right to depose Executors who brought a lawsuit against him, the situation with McClain is borderline harassment in my opinion. We all know that neither Branca nor McClain was in Michael’s life when Tohme was Michael’s “manager” hence they have no personal direct information and their knowledge and claims come from a private investigator report. So deposing McClain isn’t going to achieve anything or help Tohme in his defense. I feel Tohme lawyers rather than being reasonable and not depose McClain or alternatively do a written deposition; using McClain’s medical condition to their advantage to try to get the case against Tohme dismissed.

We will see what will happen in 2015. On another note Labor Commissioner’s decision about the three agreements between MJ and Tohme is expected to come in less than 3 months. So 2015 should bring some developments in this case