om

l.c
ae
ich

m
ily
da

1 section 431.30(d), the Corporations generally and specifically deny each of the allegations
2 contained in the Fourth Amended Complaint. The Corporations generally and specifically deny

da

3 that Robson has sustained any injury or loss by reason of any act or omission of the Corporations.
4 The Corporations generally and specifically deny that Robson has been damaged in any amount
5 whatsoever.

The Fourth Amended Complaint fails to state any valid or timely causes of action and the

ily

7 Corporations will be filing motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment in

8 due course so that this case is brought to its end with Robson recovering nothing.

a
'a~

~~
:
m
o
Q
~'
a o~~

10

~
~, ~oc~
a ~, ~,o
~ mao

12

~ ~~m

13

1.

c~ ~~`;

14 ~ of action against the Corporations.

~ mQo

~s

~ ~~
Q ~n

16

3 0
~^o~m

17

z ~z~
~ _~

a
a
w
z

18

The Fourth Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statutes of Limitations)

(Failure to State a Cause of Action)

ae

00

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ich

x Q o ,~

11

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

2.

Robson's claims are barred entirely by applicable statutes of limitations.

19 Specifically, and without limitation, Robson cannot prove that his claims are within the scope of

the expanded statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.

l.c

~O

21
22

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE D~FENS~

23

(Violation of Due Process and Other Constitutional Principles of Fundamental Fairness)

3.

om

24

Under the specific and unique circumstances of this case, any recovery by Robson

25 would violate the Corporations' rights under the due process clauses of the state and federal
26 Constitutions and by other principles offundamental fairness embodied in those documents. In
27 particular, and by way of example only, Robson waited almost four years after Michael Jackson

28 had died before he made his scurrilous and frivolous allegations. The nature of these false

THE CORPORATIONS' ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 allegations necessarily makes it impossible for the Corporations to fully defend themselves
2 without the assistance of Michael Jackson himself. The impossibility of fully and completely

da

3 defending against Robson's false allegations is further magnified by the fact that Robson himself
4 steadfastly denied these allegations during the entirety of Michael Jackson's life. Indeed, Robson
5 and his family denied the allegations under oath on multiple occasions, including in a 2005

6 criminal trial where Michael Jackson was frivolously accused of misconduct and then exonerated

ily

7 by a unanimous jury of twelve. Accordingly, the Corporations could not possibly have been on

8 notice, prior to Michael Jackson's death, that Robson would bring claims like those here and that
9 they should have been prepared to defend against such claims.

10
o
o

00
rn

11
12

a Mgo
.~~
. ~ ch

13

x Q o~
~j J L L

,r~
-7 ~ U
H m U
Qo
Q Z~
O
.
~ ~ ~ c0
N J

In

(Unclean Hands,Bad Faith, and Inequitable Conduct)

4.

15 associates, all claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint are barred in whole or in part by unclean
16 hands, bad faith, and inequitable conduct.

d
'

a
a
m

7
~~

w
~

17

ae

As a result of Robson's own affirmative claims that he perjured himself and

14 obstructed justice in prior judicial proceedings, and other inequitable conduct by him and his

r`~
i ~ Z~
~ O~ m

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ich

o
~ ~ioc~
o rn ~

c
;~

18

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19

(No Causation)

5.

Robson cannot show that any acts or omissions of the Corporations caused hiin any

l.c

20

21 damages. In particular, and by way of example only, when Michael Jackson was frivolously
22 accused of wrongdoing in 1993 and investigated by authorities regarding such wrongdoing, both
23 Robson and Robson's family, including his mother Joy Robson, publicly and prominently

om

24 defended Michael Jackson and rejected the allegations of wrongdoing out of hand, including false
25 allegations that Michael Jackson had engaged in wrongdoing with Wade Robson himself Given
26 that Joy Robson necessarily knew more than the Corporations about the relationship between
27 Wade Robson and Michael Jackson, and given that Joy Robson did not take any steps to "protect"
28 Robson (because no such steps were necessary), Wade Robson cannot possibly prove his absurd
THE CORPORATIONS' ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 allegations that the Corporations' supposed failure to take "reasonable steps" to prevent the
2 alleged abuse is what caused him damage.

da
3
4

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to File a Creditor's Claim and Code of Civil Procedure 366.2)

6.

Wade Robson already petitioned to file a claim against the Estate of Michael

ily

7 1 Jackson, based on these exact same false allegations. The Court dismissed that petition with

8 1 prejudice on May 26, 2015, and held that Robson could file no such claim against the Estate as a

0
x ~~

J"

~
~7 ~ U

H m Q p

~ ~Z~
L = o co

0
~ o~m

'
w
a
~
.
.
~;
7

11 clearly precludes Robson from recovering based on his false allegations.

12

7.

In light of the above, and given the specific allegations of the Fourth Amended

13 Complaint and prior complaints, this action against the Corporations is truly an action based on
14 the alleged personal liability of Michael Jackson himself, and not an action based on any alleged
15 "corporate" conduct of the Corporations. This is a disguised action for money damages against the
16 Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased (the Corporations are a substantial part of the res of the
17

ae

~3Q~

10 out in the Court's May 26, 2015 ruling dismissing Robson's petition against the Estate), which

ich

M ao

~ ~~~

~ matter of law. This lawsuit against the Corporations is simply an attempt to end-run the law (as set

a
a
N
~
w
m
.
.
o
A o~~
~ o~~
~ oLL oc~
rn ~

Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased, under administration of the Superior Court, Case No. BP

18 1 17321), and is precluded for all the same reasons that the prior petition to file a claim against the
19 Estate of Michael J. Jackson, deceased, was precluded as a matter of law.

l.c

20
21

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22

(Waiver)

23

8.

As a result of Robson's knowledge, conduct, words and actions, Robson has

om

24 waived any and all of the alleged rights asserted in the Fourth Amended Complaint and in each
25 and every claim therein.
26
27

28

THE CORPORATIONS' ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Join Indispensable Parties)

da
3

9.

Robson's claims are barred because he has failed to join indispensable parties who

4 are responsible for his alleged harm.

5

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ily

(Comparative Fault)

a
a
N
e;

10 must be offset and reduced entirely or by the percentage of allocable fault.

o
~

a o~~

11

12

^-~coQo
~ ~ c+~

13

0
x ~~

J lL

w ~U

^oQm
r
~~N w
C
~

(Caches)

1 1.

15

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16

(Estoppel)

17
18

Robson's claims are barred entirely by the doctrine of laches.

ae

~ ma
~ z
o '
~ ~~
Q~
~ 3 z~

14

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ich

~oc~
o
~
F o rn ~

.
,

To the extent the Corporations are at fault legally at all, Robson's alleged damages

9 are largely due to the fault of others, and his alleged damages recoverable against the Corporations

a
a

10.

12.

19

Robson's claims are barred entirely by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21

(Lack of llamages)

22

13.

l.c

20

Robson's claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint are barred in whole or in part,

23 because Robson suffered neither damages nor injury; any damages or injuries alleged are

om

24 attributable to causes other than any asserted acts or omissions of the Corporations.
25
26
27
28

THE CORPORATIONS' ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

11

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

21

(Speculative Damages)

da
3

14.

Robson cannot recover any of the damages alleged in the Fourth Amended

4 ComPlaint because such damages if anY,are too sPeculative to be recoverable.

5

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ily

(Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel)

71

a
`
a"
N

15.

This action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

o ~~

11

~3 ~~~

12

~ mQ
o
7 ~ Z o~
rn

,~.~
~7
G-;

.
,

16.

(Federal Prccmption)

This action is preempted, in whole or in part, by federal law including, by way of

13 example only, because Plaintiff is attempting to use state common law doctrines to impose duties
1

upon the Corporations which conflict with, and go well beyond, those duties imposed on the

15

Corporations by the Federal Government's comprehensive immigration and naturalization laws

16 and regulations, a subject matter within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal
17 Government.
1g

ae

~ ~J'~~
Q
~ ~Zo
K ~Nc~

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ich

a i~ao

~ ~~m
"w~, Qw oJ '~
LL
J Q
~G~~,

10

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20

(12eservation of Rights)

21

17.

l.c

19

The Corporations have insufficient information upon which to form a belief as to

22 whether it has additional, unstated affirmative defenses. The Corporations reserve the right to
23 ~ ~ assert additional defenses in the event they are appropriate.

25
26
27
28

om

24

THE CORPORATIONS' ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

WHEREFORE,the Corporations respectfully pray for judgment against Wade Robson as

2 follows:

da
3

1.

That Wade Robson take nothing by way of his Complaint and that judgment be

4 rendered in favor of the Corporations and against Wade Robson;

5

2.

For costs of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys' fees due to the

6 frivolous nature of the case; and

ily
7

3.

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

a,
.
;
~

9 DATED: November 14, 2016

~ ~o~
o ~~

12

~ coQo
i~ ~ c+~
,
~'Q
o~
~ ~ J

13

LL

14

~G"
,7 ~ U

~ mQo
U
C' ~ O ~
.
. ~~c0
J

00 N W
~
~
a
a
r~

16
17
18

.
r

,
.

19

21
22
23

25
26
27
28

om

24

l.c

20

Howard Weitzman
Attorneys for Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc.,
and MJJ Ventures, Inc.

ae

H ~ Zo
UoQm

15

By:

ich

11

a o~~

10
o
~

KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER

KUMP & ALDIS~RT LLP

THE CORPORATIONS' ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

1
2

On every single cause of action and issue so triable, the Corporations demand a trial by a

da

3 jury of their peers.

4

5 ~ DATED: November 14, 2016

KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER

KUMP & ALDISERT LLP

ily
7
8

~,

By:
oward Weitzman
Attorneys for Defendants MJJ Productions, Inc.,
and MJJ Ventures, Inc.

11

~ ~io~
o rn ~

12

~ i~Qo
.'~
j ~~m

13

O X
Q
LL a
w J
LL.

-.7 ~U
6~

14
15

Q ~n
~ 3 Z~

16

~ Q M

17

~N w

C
~;
G-a

Ig

19

21
22
23

25
26
27
28

om

24

l.c

20

ae

I~-I m Q
U p
~ Z~
O~
~~~

0386.00226/370450

ich

o
A
~
a o~~

10

:
a

THE CORPORATIONS' ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT