Safechuck v. MJJ Productions

Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, Inc. is a lawsuit in the California state courts which led to a 2023 ruling by the California Courts of Appeal holding that a corporation enabling child abuse by one of its employees is not freed from its affirmative duty to warn and protect such vulnerable children simply because the perpetrator was the corporation's sole owner.^[1]

The plaintiffs in the consolidated case were two individuals, James Safechuck and Wade Robson, who developed close relationships with the famous pop star Michael Jackson after encountering him as child performers. Robson, an Australian child dancer, first met Jackson after winning a dance competition at age seven and subsequently spent time with Jackson and his family.^[2] Safechuck was a child actor who first met Jackson when he appeared with the star in a 1987 Pepsi commercial. Safechuck alleged that the singer grew close to the Safechuck family and himself.^[3]

Although both plaintiffs initially denied being molested — Safechuck as a child during the 1993 investigation, and Robson as a young adult in 2005 — they later filed separate civil lawsuits against Jackson’s companies in 2013 and 2014, respectively, alleging sexual abuse in childhood.

The now-adult men claimed that in the 1980s and 1990s the defendant corporations, owned by Jackson, enabled and "operated a sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization, designed to locate, attract, lure, and seduce victims.^[4]

The plaintiffs asserted that they were repeatedly victimized as vulnerable children by Jackson with the full complicity of the defendant corporations. The abuse, they alleged, was enabled by staff who were paid to retrieve, care for the children, and deliver them to Jackson as part of the abuse.^[5]

The lower court threw out the claims, stating that the companies had no legal duty to protect the boys from abuse.^[6][7] The plaintiffs appealed the ruling.^[8]

On October 20, 2020, a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark A. Young dismissed a lawsuit filed by Safechuck against Jackson's two corporations, MJJ Productions Inc., and MJJ Ventures Inc.^[9][10] Both accusers filed their sex abuse lawsuits in 2013 and 2014 respectively, which were dismissed at first for being beyond the statute of limitations.^[11]

in October 2020, California governor Gavin Newsom signed a new law extending the time period for individuals alleging childhood sexual abuse to file lawsuits.^[12] Following this revival due to new legislation regarding abuse claims, the lawsuits would nevertheless dismissed on the grounds that Jackson's companies had no legal obligation to protect them from alleged sex abuse.^[13][14]

In his dismissal of Safechuck's lawsuit, Young also ruled that Safechuck had failed to demonstrate that Jackson's companies had a legal duty to protect children from alleged abuse by Jackson.^[15][16] Safechuck and Robson appealed and their appeals were handled on a consolidated basis.^[17]

The corporate defendants' assertion that they lacked control over Jackson and the plaintiffs' well-being due to his status as their sole shareholder was dismissed by the appellate court.^[18][19]

Said Justice Grimes for the court: "Plaintiffs had every right to expect defendants to protect them from the entirely foreseeable danger of being left alone with Jackson. ... [W]e reject the notion that defendants were powerless to do anything about [alleged] abuse that was ongoing since 1990, including alerting the authorities and refraining from facilitating the abuse."^[1]

The appellate court sent the two cases back down to the trial court for further proceedings.^[20]

Since the 2023 appellate published decision and 2020 revision to the statute of limitations, at least five other individuals (all siblings) have filed lawsuits or otherwise engaged in litigation against Jackson entities alleging sexual abuse by the entertainer as children.^{[21] [22] [23] [24]}

At a February 28, 2024 hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael E. Whitaker granted Robson and Safechuck the right to consolidate their separate lawsuits into a single case on a formal basis, with their attorneys expressing a desire to set a trial date before the release of the Michael biopic that had been expected later that year.^[25][26][27] That same year, defendants requested refreshed mental examinations of Robson and Safechuck.^[28]

On August 22, 2024, a Los Angeles judge quashed subpoenas from the two plaintiffs seeking law-enforcement records, including photographs of Michael Jackson’s nude body taken during the 1993 criminal investigation.^[29] In the autumn of 2025, additional disputes over witness subpoenas were reported.^[30]

Trial is scheduled for November 2026 and the plaintiffs request $400 million according to legal fee disputes between the estate and Jackson's daughter, Paris Jackson.^[31][32]

Robson and Safechuck discussed their claims in the documentaries Leaving Neverland (2019) and Leaving Neverland 2: Surviving Michael Jackson (2025).

• Michael Jackson – 1993 allegations (overview)
  • 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (main page)
• Michael Jackson – 2003–2005 claims and related trial (overview)
  • Trial of Michael Jackson (main page)
• Michael Jackson – posthumous allegations (overview)
• FBI files on Michael Jackson
• Works about the Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

}}