K. Jackson-Klage gegen AEG- Der Prozess- Nur News -Keine Diskussion

[Lena]

Entgegen einiger voreiliger Berichte wie CNN oder der eingestellte NBC-Artikel, der bereits wieder entfernt wurde ist die Entscheidung einen neuen Prozess abzulehnen nach wie vor vorläufig.

[geli2709]

Wie wohl nicht anders zu erwarten war, erkennt die Richterin Palazuelos keine Fehler in ihren prozessrelevanten Entscheidungen und Anweisungen der Jury. Somit entschied sie sich am Montag, den 13.1.2014, endgültig gegen einen neuen Prozess.
(What judge would have admitted his/her own incompetence and mistakes, allowing a retrial ?)




New trial in Michael Jackson wrongful-death suit rejected
By Alan Duke, CNN
January 13, 2014 -- Updated 2116 GMT (0516 HKT)


Los Angeles (CNN) -- The judge who presided over the Michael Jackson wrongful-death trial last year issued a final rejection of the Jacksons' request for a new trial on Monday.

The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson's mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.

Lawyers for mother Katherine Jackson argued that the verdict form used by the jury was faulty and that the judge erred by refusing to let them pursue a negligence claim independent of the hiring case.

Their motion for a new trial filed in December included sworn statements from four of the 12 jurors saying they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form.

Jackson died from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009, which Dr. Conrad Murray told police he used to treat the pop icon's insomnia as he prepared for a tour produced by AEG Live.

Los Angeles County Judge Yvette Palazuelos issued a tentative ruling earlier in January saying she did not err in her decisions on the verdict form or with the dismissal of the negligence claim.

She heard oral arguments on January 3 and filed her final decision denying the request on Monday.

Jackson lawyers have indicated they will appeal the jury's verdict.

AEG Live lawyers filed statements from seven other jurors saying they were not confused by the verdict form.

The jurors cited by the Jackson motion used the words "stunned," "upset" and "shocked" when they were told they had to stop deliberations after a majority agreed the answer was "no" to the second question on the verdict form: "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"

One juror called the question "a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case."

"After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG LIve," another juror said. "Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded."

Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contended that Palazuelos erred by denying their request to add the words "at any time" to the second question.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/13/showbiz/michael-jackson-trial-denied/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter

ÜBERSETZUNG:
von @ Sunflower

http://recognize-history.teamgoo.net/t750p220-der-prozess-kjackson-gegen-aeg-diskussionsthread

Neue Verhandlung abgewiesen


Am Montag lehnte die Richterin, die den Vorsitz der Verhandlungen im letzten Jahr hatte, endgültig den Antrag der Jacksons für eine neue Verhandlung ab. Im Oktober endete der sechs Monate dauernde Prozess mit einem Sieg für AEG Live. Jacksons Mutter und seine Kinder hatten dem Konzertveranstalter vorgeworfen, verantwortlich für dessen Tod zu sein, weil sie den Arzt, der der fahrlässigen Tötung für schuldig befunden wurde, angeheuert, beibehalten und beobachtet hätten.

Katherine Jacksons Rechtsanwälte argumentierten, dass das Urteilsformular für die Geschworenen fehlerhaft war, dass die Richterin einen Fehler machte mti der Weigerung, einen Fahrlässigkeitsanspruch unabhängig von der Einstellung der Klage weiter verfolgen zu lassen.

Ihr Antrag auf ein neues Verfahren, der im Dezember eingereicht wurde, enthält eidesstattliche Erklärungen von vier der zwölf Geschworenen, die besagen, sie fühlen sich vom Ausgang der Verhandlung betrogen, welches sie dem irreführenden Jury-Formular zuschreiben.
...

Richterin Yvette Palazuelos hatte einen vorläufigen Beschluss im Januar abgelegt, dass sie sich in ihren Entscheidungen über das Jury-Formular oder mit der Klagerückweisung auf einen Fahrlässigkeitsanspruch nciht geirrt hat. Sie hat die mündlichen Argumente am 3. Januar gehört und hat ihre Endentscheidung eingereicht, die die Bitte am Montag abwies.

Die Rechtsanwälte der Jacksons haben angegeben, dass sie gegen das Jury-Urteil Berufung einlegen werden.


Die AEG Live Anwälte reichten Aussagen von 7 Geschworenen ein, die nicht von den Jury-Anweisungen verwirrt waren.


Die von der Jackson-Antragsschrift zitierten Geschworenen benutzen Worte wie "fassungslos", "verärgert" und "schockiert", als sie mit den Beratungen aufhören mussten, nachdem die Mehrheit darüber einig war, dass die Antwort auf die 2. Frage auf dem Jury-Formular "nein" lautet: "War Dr. Conrad Murray ungeeignet oder unfähig, die Arbeit auszuführen, für die er angestellt wurde?".


Ein Geschworener nannte die Frage "eine Falle, die uns davon abgehalten hat, sich über die echten Probleme des Falls zu beraten".


"Nach knapp 6 Monaten Gerichtssitzungen habe ich geglaubt Katherine Jackson hätte ihre Klage gegen AEG Live bewiesen", sagte ein anderer Geschworener. "Trotz dieser Tatsache hatte ich keine Möglichkeit zu Gunsten der Kläger abzustimmen, wegen der Art wie die Jury-Anweisungen formuliert waren."

Die Jackson Rechtsanwälte argumentieren, dass Palazuelos einen Fehler machte, ihre Anfrage auf Hinzufügung des Wortes "jederzeit" zur 2. Frage, abzuweisen.

[Lena]

Judge rejects bid for new Michael Jackson trial

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge on Monday rejected a bid by Michael Jackson’s mother for a new trial in her lawsuit claiming the promoter of her son’s ill-fated comeback concerts was negligent in his death.
Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos ruled that jurors were given proper instructions and there were no errors in her trial rulings that would warrant a retrial.
Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos hat entschieden, dass Juroren die richtigen Anweisungen gegeben wurden und es gab keine Fehler in ihrem Prozess, die eine Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens rechtfertigen würden .

A jury determined in October that AEG Live was not liable for Jackson’s June 2009 death despite hiring the doctor who was convicted of giving the superstar an overdose of a powerful anesthetic.
Katherine Jackson’s lawyers argued that jurors were given an improper verdict form that was contrary to state law and didn’t allow them to consider all the issues in the case after five months of testimony last year.
AEG’s lawyers argued that there was no mistake in the verdict form and the motion for a new trial should be denied.
Attorneys for the Jackson family matriarch say they will appeal to a higher state court.
Anwälte für die Jackson-Familie sagen, dass sie bei einem höheren Staatsgericht in Berufung gehen werden.
Jurors decided the case on a question about whether evidence showed former cardiologist Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to serve as Jackson’s physician while he prepared for a series of 50 concerts at London’s O2 Arena. Katherine Jackson’s attorneys argued the question unfairly restricted deliberations, but Palazuelos disagreed.
“Question Two does not restrict jurors to the consideration of Dr. Murray’s competence at the time of hiring only,” the judge wrote.
" Frage zwei hat die Juroren bei der Berücksichtigung der Kompetenz von Dr. Murray nicht auf die Zeit der Einstellung eingeschränkt", schrieb die Richterin .

She also determined that there was no evidence that the panel was confused by the verdict form, noting that jurors often wrote her notes about scheduling concerns and to ask for supplies during deliberations.
Sie hat auch festgestellt, dass es keine Beweise gibt , dass das Urteil von der Urteilsform verwirrt wurde und bemerkte, dass Juroren ihr oft schrieben ihre Notizen zum Planen von Bedenken während der Beratungen zu stellen.


“The court finds no jury confusion based on the admissible evidence,” Palazuelos ruled.
"Das Gericht hat keine Jury Verwirrung auf der Grundlage der zulässigen Beweismittel gefunden ", hat Palazuelos ausgeschlossen .

AEG Live’s attorney Marvin Putnam praised Monday’s ruling.
“We were confident that the court would uphold the jury’s verdict,” he wrote in a statement. “This is also fantastic news for the taxpayers of California, who won’t have their hard-earned money wasted retrying plaintiffs’ baseless claims. Enough is enough.”
"Wir waren zuversichtlich , dass das Gericht das Urteil der Jury wahrt ", schrieb Putnam in einer Erklärung. " Dies ist auch eine fantastische Nachricht für die Steuerzahler von Kalifornien, dass nicht ihre hart verdienten Geld verschwendet mit einem erneuten Versuch der unbegründeten Ansprüche der Kläger . Genug ist genug. "


Kevin Boyle, an attorney for Katherine Jackson and her grandchildren, said the case was far from over.
“We believe there are numerous ways that we can win on appeal,” Boyle wrote in an email.
"Wir glauben es gibt zahlreiche Wege wie wir eine Berufung gewinnen." sagt Boxle in einer E-Mail
Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live on behalf of herself and her son’s three children, accusing the concert promoter of hiring Murray and creating a conflict of interest in his care of the pop superstar.
Murray, who was deeply in debt, was expecting to be paid $150,000 a month to care for Jackson while he prepared for a planned series of comeback concerts in London’s O2 Arena. The singer died on June 25, 2009, after receiving an overdose the anesthetic propofol, which Murray was giving Jackson as a sleep aid.
Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and released in October after serving two years.
The trial offered a look into Jackson’s personal life as well as his routines as an entertainer and medical treatments for a variety of ailments.
Jurors who spoke after the verdict said their verdict did not mean they thought Murray was ethical in his care of Jackson. But they determined he was fit and competent to serve as the singer’s doctor when he was hired.
AEG Live executives denied any wrongdoing throughout the trial and said there was no way they could have known that Murray was giving Jackson propofol in the bedroom of his rented mansion.

[Memphis]

Dies ist auch eine fantastische Nachricht für die Steuerzahler von Kalifornien, dass nicht ihre hart verdienten Geld verschwendet mit einem erneuten Versuch der unbegründeten Ansprüche der Kläger . Genug ist genug.

unabhängig von der entscheidung der richterin - verstehe ich den fettmarkierten satz nicht?
es ist doch ein zivilprozess gewesen und demnach muss der steuerzahler doch gar nicht dafür aufkommen oder?

[November]

unabhängig von der entscheidung der richterin - verstehe ich den fettmarkierten satz nicht?
es ist doch ein zivilprozess gewesen und demnach muss der steuerzahler doch gar nicht dafür aufkommen oder?

Das ist in jedem Fall eine glasklare Meinungsmanipulation gegen Katherine Jackson. Man möchte die "Gemeinschaft der kalifornischen Steuerzahler" gegen sie beeinflussen. Sowas zieht (leider) oft.

[Lena]

Anbei die Gerichtspapiere zur Entscheidung Ablehnung des neuen Prozesses:

http://de.scribd.com/doc/199865002/Jackson-vs-AEG-New-Trial-Ruling

Eine Zusammenfassung dazu von Ivy, MJJC
Summary of the judge's ruling

- All juror affidavits (4 by Jacksons and 7 by AEG) have been stricken as they are inadmissible as they are about juror's mental processes and reasoning. As they are stricken Judge also will not address the claims against lawyers.

- All juror affidavits filed are now under seal as Judge believes the identities of the jurors need to be protected due to 1)someone taking a picture through a window, 2) someone approaching to 2 jurors 3) William Wagener taking pictures of jurors, 4) a threat Paul Gongaware received during trial and 5) a concerning email sent to the court.

Now on to the Judge's denial of the request for a new trial

- There's a correction added that negligent hiring/supervision/retention aren't three separate causes of action but they are three separate causes of recovery.

- Judge states that Jacksons always maintained their opposition to Q1 but it was legally proper hence court overrules Jacksons objections.

- Judge states that the record does not show that Jacksons asked for BAJI modification or three separate definitions for negligent hiring/retention/supervision. The transcript portions the judge add include Panish saying "I know we don't want to copy BAJI" and "I'm not saying pick BAJI" and Chang saying "we'll work on it". Judge states she asked plaintiffs if they wanted BAJI or CACI, they declined BAJI (I'm not saying pick BAJI") and even though they said "we'll work on it" in regards to break out negligent hiring/retention and supervision they submitted CACI instructions. So the judge says given that Jacksons denied BAJI when asked and did not provide any break out instructions , they cannot argue that the court committed error by not giving them.

- As for adding "at any time", judge states that was a request done orally and the transcript is vague in regards to which question Boyle was referring. Court lists several examples that Jacksons wanted the exact language of CACI. The transcripts added by the judge includes Panish saying "we proposed the CACI one", Panish saying "what is wrong with CACI?" and Boyle saying "Your honor, I think if there's ever one that we should definitely stick with a CACI in this case, it should be the negligent hiring, supervision and retention that has been approved by the Judicial Council". So Judge finds that Jacksons wanted CACI and the exact language and they are stopped from arguing that the court made an error based on invited error doctrine.

- As for a general verdict form (were they negligent? what are the damages) court states this was mentioned orally and opposed by AEG and there's no ruling on it as it wasn't mentioned again or a written general negligence form was not submitted to the court. However judge states that a general verdict form would not change the verdict as the jury would still be required to consider all of the required elements of negligent hiring/retention/supervision and a "no" answer would still mean AEG would be found not negligent.

- As for Q1, Judge says employment relationship is needed for negligent hiring/supervision and retention and also as there's a dispute in regards to who hired Murray , AEG or Michael. Judge says Murray's hiring wasn't clear cut and if the Q1 was omitted and the verdict form started with Q2 it would create a confusion as it assumed Murray was hired. So the judge says jurors first had to determine if AEG hired Murray and then determine whether this was negligent.

- For Q2 the judge states that is asks if Murray was unfit or incompetent "work for which he was hired" and not "at the time he hired". Judge also states that adding "at any time" would create confusion as it could include time periods before AEG even had contact or hired Murray and the time period after MJ's death.

- As for the definition of "unfit and incompetent" judge states that there's no CA law that it includes "unethical". Judge says competence and fitness for a job depends on many factors. Judge states it was Jacksons experts duty to describe Murray unethical conducts and tie Murray's unethical conducts to unfitness or incompetence to practice medicine.

- Judge cites CACI 426 sourced and authority (Mendoza case example here: http://www.justia.com/trials-litigat...i/400/426.html) and then cites BAJI and says that negligent supervision is tied to initial negligent hiring and the qualities of the employee known to employer and in view of the work entrusted to him and her. In more simpler terms the judge cites a court of appeal ruling which states that supervision is required when employer knows that the employee is a person who could not be trusted to act properly without being supervised. With no such knowledge there's no liability for negligent supervision. Judge states that CA law provides liability for supervision and retention but it requires that to be in light of hiring based on the qualifications and character of the employee and the tasks to be performed.
(Ivy's note: It sounds like you can only be found negligent of supervision if you knew you had an employee that needed supervision and cannot be trusted to act on their own and yet you failed to provide supervision.)

- As the juror affidavits stricken judge is not considering them in regards to a possible confusion about Q1+ Q2. Judge again repeats Q2 did not ask "at the time he was hired", it asked "work for which he was hired". Judge also mentions (and adds transcripts) Panish saying in his closing " it's the entire time" twice and saying "at any time" during his rebuttal. Judge mentions in his closing Putnam did not say anything contrary and only mentioned "job for which he was hired".

- Judge mentions jurors sent her several notes over the 5 months of trial and therefore finds it unlikely that the jurors would hesitate to send questions to the court if they wanted.

- Judge states the answers to the verdict form - Q1 favorable for plaintiff and Q2 unfavorable for the plaintiff- demonstrates no jury confusion and jurors ability to answer questions separately and based on its merits.

- Judge explains Jacksons general negligence claim of 1)AEG interfering with MJ's healthcare and his doctor-patient relationship with Murray 2) negligent dissemination of knowingly false information about Murray to stop concerns expressed about MJ's health, 3)negligent infliction of pressure on MJ to continue tour and 4) failure to postpone or cancel shows after learning MJ's declining health. Judge says AEG's interference with MJ's health cannot be argued as general negligence as the interference is caused by the Murray hiring. Therefore that's a negligent hiring/retention and supervision claim.

- Judge states existence and scope of one's duty of care is determined according to circumstances. Judge mentions CA supreme court and duties about sports and how the court considered the nature of sports. Judge states MJ was a world class performer who did many live concerts and tours. AEG is a concert promoter. The entertainment industry is known to involve a lot of pressure to perform and a lot of capital investment. However the judge states a reasonable person can cannot foresee that wanting to maintain a concert tour even in spite of undefined health issues would lead to the artist's death. Judge states that it's unreasonable to think that AEG wanted to maintain the concert tour but also foresee that Michael would die due to their actions. Judge states AEG had the greatest incentive to avoid such outcome (MJ's death).
(Ivy's note: In other words the judge is trying to say that if the argument is that AEG wanted to make sure that the concerts happened, they would want Michael alive and well to perform. Michael dying means cancelling the shows - something AEG did not want.)

- Judge states 8.1 of MJ/ AEG contact was about production of the show and did not mention medical care or Murray. The MJ/AEG/Murray contract mentioned medical care and Murray. So Judge stated MJ/AEG concert contract had nothing to do with medical care where as MJ/AEG/Murray contract was specifically about medical care.

- Judge states by law a person cannot be subjected to two duties for the same conduct. Judge states AEG's actions was subject to negligence claim based on their contract with Murray hence the proper negligent hiring, supervision and retention claim.

[geli2709]

Katherine Jackson vs AEG Civil Trial - The Jurors

Interessenten müssen das Video leider erst entsperren bevor sie es anschauen können, da ganz zum Schluß Cry unterlegt wurde.

[Lena]

Das Gericht entschied in einer tendenziellen, dass Kathrine Jackson 800000 Dollar an Gerichtskosten an AEG zahlen muss. AEG hatte ursprünglich 1,2 Mio. gefordert, die K-J. Anwälte sagten höchstens 1/4 der Kosten sei gerechtfertigt.. Es wird erwartet, dass das Gericht die Entscheidung finalisiert wenn AEG seine Kosten eingereicht hat. Beide Parteien erhoben keinen Einspruch nach der Entscheidung, es besteht aber die Möglichkeit der Berufung. Kevin Boyle, Anwalt von Kathrine sagt die Entscheidung darüber fällt, wenn man die endtültige Fassung der Entscheidung hat. AEG Live Anwalt Marvin Putnam sagte das Gericht machte die rechte Sache "indem es von Kathrine Jackson verlangt beinahe eine 1 Mio. zu zahlen für eine Angelegenheit die nie vor Gericht gebracht hätte werden dürfen."Judge: Michael Jackson's mom should pay more than $800,000 in trial costs after failed lawsuit

http://www.usnews.com/news/entertainment/articles/2014/04/14/judge-michael-jacksons-mom-should-pay-costs

FILE - In this April 27, 2011 file photo, Katherine Jackson poses for a portrait in Calabasas, Calif. A Los Angeles judge tentatively ruled Monday April 14, 2014, that Katherine Jackson should pay more than $800,000 in legal costs to AEG Live LLC over her unsuccessful lawsuit against the concert promoter alleging it negligently hired the doctor convicted of causing her son's death in 2009. (AP Photo/Matt Sayles, File)
Associated Press April 14, 2014 Leave a CommentSHARE






By ANTHONY McCARTNEY, AP Entertainment Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Michael Jackson's mother should pay more than $800,000 in trial costs to a concert promoter that she targeted in a failed negligent hiring lawsuit involving the death of her son, a judge said Monday.
Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos issued the tentative ruling calling on the Jackson family matriarch to pay AEG Live LLC after it won the case.
The five-month trial ended in October with a jury determining that AEG Live did not negligently hire the doctor convicted of causing Michael Jackson's death in 2009 as he prepared for a comeback tour.
The ruling is expected to be finalized after AEG Live submits an amended list of its costs for items such as court filing fees, court reporters and travel. Attorneys for the company and Katherine Jackson agreed not to argue Palazuelos' tentative ruling, but it might be appealed.
Katherine Jackson's attorney Kevin Boyle said a decision on appealing the order would be made after reviewing its final language. The verdict and rulings in the case are currently being appealed.
AEG Live initially sought more than $1.2 million to cover its costs. Katherine Jackson's lawyers claimed only about a quarter of that amount was justified.
AEG Live attorney Marvin Putnam said the court did the right thing "by ordering Katherine Jackson to pay nearly $1 million spent in having to defend a matter that she should have never brought in the first place."A motion filed by her lawyers last week stated that the costs would be borne by her and the singer's three children, all of whom are supported by his estate.
The estate has earned hundreds of millions of dollars since the singer's death and paid off his debts. It also covers schooling, housing and other costs for his children and mother.
Jackson died in June 2009 after receiving an overdose of the anesthetic propofol, which former cardiologist Conrad Murray was giving the superstar as a sleep aid during preparations for his planned "This Is It" shows. Murray was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
___
Anthony McCartney can be reached at http://twitter.com/mccartneyAP
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.