Jackson's motion for leave to amend
Jackson motion
Jackson lawyers have filed a motion to amend their complaint to add a claim of negligence. 
Jackson lawyers state their original complaint first claim was dismissed by the judge because the judge ruled there was no "duty of care". Jackson lawyers argue that the evidence presented has established a duty of care and allege that AEG performed their contractual duties as producer negligently (paragraph 8 of the contract list AEG's duties)
Evidence to show AEG breached its duty

AEG's motion of nonsuit

As Ortega's testimony concluded Jacksons case in chief, AEG has filed a motion for nonsuit - meaning they are claiming Jacksons did not meet burden of proof and case needs to be dismissed. In the alternative (if the whole nonsuit motion is not granted) , AEG is asking for dismissal of individual defendants - Phillips &Gongaware

AEG’s main motion 

AEG states Jacksons failed to meet their burden of proof on the negligent hiring claim. 

AEG states case law that says in California negligent hiring requires “the contact between plaintiff and employee was generated by the employment relationship” and “if employee met plaintiff as a result of something other than employment, a duty will not be imposed on employer”. AEG states this is the case here and the contact between Michael Jackson and Conrad Murray was not created by the AEG- Murray employment. AEG states it is undisputed that Michael and Murray have met in 2006 and Murray started treating Michael before any relationship between AEG and Murray. AEG also adds that when Michael told AEG he wanted Murray, both Phillips and Gongaware advised Michael to hire a doctor in London but Michael rejected it and continued with Murray. AEG states AEG did not start Michael / Murray relationship and they did not have the power to end it. 

AEG continues to state that negligent hiring claim requires Jacksons show that AEG knew or should have known Murray posed a particularrisk to Michael and they hired him nonetheless. AEG states Jacksons failed to show that AEG knew or should have known Murray posed the risk of harming Michael through improper medical care. 

AEG states knowledge about Michael’s 93 painkiller addiction and knowledge that Michael appeared ill at times (during 2009) would not put AEG on notice that Murray , a doctor chosen and treated Michael for years ,might kill Michael through an overdose of anesthesia. AEG states even if they discovered what Jacksons state about Murray – debts, judgments, hospital privileges being suspended due to recordkeeping issues- it would not show that Murray would harm Michael through incompetent medical care. AEG states there’s no evidence that Murray harmed a patient before.

AEG states Jacksons failed to demonstrate knowledge and harm. AEG states CA case examples to demonstrate that CA law requires a closer nexus with the knowledge and actual harm. Examples include appeal court rulings of : knowledge an employee used drugs and abused his position to gain sexual favors did not put employer on notice that employee might sexually assault a fellow employee. Another example is knowledge of a priest breaking his celibacy wow and having sex with adult women did not put the church on notice that the priest would molest a minor child. There are other several examples provided.


- Percocet mention is coming from Dr. Sasaki. Apparently he prescribed it twice and refused to give it a third time. This was 93. 

Metzger deposition parts

- Klein socialized , had more personal relationship with Michael
- Klein was like a mother hen , like to be the first door, handling a lot of medical stuff. sometimes call Metzger (Debbie called him), told about Michael's complaints, asked for advice , medical care. Metzger would give advice without seeing Michael. If it concerned him, he would ask to see Michael.
- Metzger prescribed Plaquenil for lupus