THREAD: With Safechuck's case on appeal again, here's a brief analysis of Finaldi's 2018-2019 appeals using his own briefs and filings.

Many of these same arguments will repeat in his new appeal—although there are a few material differences between the 2018 ruling and 2020's.

In 2017, the judge's dismissal of James' case was based largely on the statute of limitations. During his appeal, AB 218 was passed that negated these limitations on CSA cases, so it was reversed.

In 2020, Judge Young dismissed it based on the other irreversibly flawed causes.

A good portion of Finaldi's last appeal was arguing about the timeliness of the filing, since that was the key to its dismissal. Due to AB 218, timeliness is no longer an issue.

James waited 5 years after MJ died to realize his stresses were from "abuse" after seeing Wade on TV.

"Special Relationship" - Beckloff

This is a big point Finaldi attempts to make, that a special relationship exists due to Safechuck's "employment" and therefore the companies are responsible.

Beckloff accepted a relationship existed but denied the entities had control over MJ.

"No Special Relationship" - Young

In contrast to Beckloff who accepted at face-value (with skepticism) that JS was employed in 88-92, Young did not find this special relationship existed.

Further, Young explained even IF one existed, it still wouldn't satisfy the burden needed.

Finaldi repeatedly attempts to spin James' occasional interaction with MJ and MJ buying them gifts/reservations—including during concerts and some travels—as if that was employment.

James was NEVER employed by MJ's companies from 88-92, MJJ Ventures didn't even exist until 91.

The lack of any evidence of James' employment in 88-92 is a problem for them. It underscores the frivolity of parroting Wade's case in pursuit of $.

Wade can argue some tangible employment while James was no more employed than Elizabeth Taylor was—MJ giving gifts doesn't count.

Finaldi uses a letter that MJ sent to James—in response to a letter FROM James—in which MJ mentions them "working together" on the Pepsi commercial.

That commercial was funded by Pepsi and arranged by their agencies. It had nothing to do with MJ or his companies.

Pointless.

Judge Young's ruling sustaining the demurrer was more impactful then Beckloff's regarding the "special relationship."

Young noted that James did not establish a "fiduciary" OR a "special" relationship.

He also rejected Finaldi's case example, as being materially very different.

To support "Infliction Of Emotional Distress" Finaldi says the staff "refused to [report MJ] in order to protect their public image & keep financial flow going."

He ignores how those who 1st made tabloid claims in 93-94 (Quindoy, Blanca, Thomas) hadn't been employed for YEARS.

Finaldi originally planned to remove the "Emotional Distress" cause when he took over, just as he removed the CSA & battery causes against these companies.

Judge Young ruled that none of the "facts in this case" were applicable. The companies would not be direct perpetrators.

Finaldi fixates on the negligence causes and "mandatory reporters" (a topic he brings up in many depositions), which encompass 4/6 of the causes.

YOUNG: "No legal duty of care - mandatory reporter requirement does not apply. Negligence causes of action fail as a matter of law."

On the "fiduciary duty" cause, Finaldi blindly argues James "was a minor employee in their custody and control...they procured & oversaw his dance instruction, career advice, training, clothing, food, travel, accommodations."

Both judges agreed fiduciary duty doesn't exist here.

Finaldi's reply to the estate's factual rebuttal of his far-reaching appellate claims was to call them "ad homen attacks, berating James" while emphasizing that the merit of their accusations was not for the appeals to decide. He then parroted the same loose arguments as above.

As if one, two, three, four versions of James' lawsuit wasn't enough to remedy its failures, Finaldi also pleaded that the 2018 appellate court should allow him the chance to revise it a 5th time if they didn't buy his arguments, despite Beckloff ruling he shouldn't be able to.

In Feb. 2019, Finaldi proposed an "if all else fails" effort to argue about a new code that extended statutes for ADULT victims of sexual abuse. This wasn't applicable to Wade/James but he sought to argue on it.

Lucky for them, AB 218 came along & saved it at the 11th hour.

The last appeal only considered the statute of limitations, with the panel leaving the rest of the causes up to the trial court.

The trial court then denied all other causes.

The new appeal will focus largely on these same causes and arguments, except for the timeliness.

The most crucial elements for the appellate court will be to decide "special & fiduciary relationship" status as required by James to support virtually all of the causes alleged.

Young ruled that neither existed & even if special relationship did, it wouldn't help these causes.