The civil cases

Robson filed his case in 2013 and Safechuck in 2014. The surviving corporate claims concern MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, rather than a new criminal prosecution of Jackson. The first round of dismissals involved the deadline for bringing claims against third-party defendants. In January 2020 the appellate court applied California’s amended limitations law to their nonfinal cases and returned them for further proceedings. It expressly left the truth of the allegations undecided. [1]

There was another round of dismissals in 2020 and 2021. The companies argued they could not owe a protective duty against their sole owner because they could not control him. The August 2023 appellate opinion rejected sole ownership as an automatic escape from a corporation’s duty when it facilitates an employee’s alleged abuse. It reversed those judgments. [2]

That is a significant legal outcome, but the allegations still had to be proved. The estate continued to deny them; the plaintiffs welcomed the opportunity for a trial. AP also distinguishes the corporations from Jackson’s personal estate, which had previously been removed as a defendant in these cases. “They sued the estate” is therefore an imprecise shortcut. [3]

The two exaggerations are mirror images: “dismissed, so proved false” and “revived, so proved true.” A court can resolve deadlines or the existence of a legal duty without deciding whether the alleged act happened. These opinions must be read for the particular question each answered.

Nancy Dillon’s report of the June 12, 2026 hearing says Judge Michael E. Whitaker set a February 14, 2028 trial for the consolidated corporate cases. Lawyers described deposition scheduling and limited discovery-referee availability; both sides agreed to waive earlier trial deadlines. That supersedes older reporting announcing November 2026. It is a reported setting, not a promise that a jury will sit on that date. This edition has not obtained a later certified scheduling order. [1]

Discovery disputes also need their own labels. In August 2024, the judge rejected requests for the entire historical criminal-investigation files. Courtroom reporting describes earlier subpoena rulings and failure to give required privacy notices to affected people. A subpoena defeat does not prove the requested evidence was fabricated, nor that every record was admitted for trial. [2]

The 2023 appeal was not an unqualified win for the plaintiffs. Alongside restoring the corporate claims, the court upheld sanctions and protective-order rulings involving discovery and nonparty witnesses. Those determinations concern litigation conduct and permissible discovery; they do not amount to a judicial finding that the underlying abuse allegations were true or false. [3]

No merits verdict in these corporate suits was verified for this October 21, 2026 edition. Discovery, scheduling and future motions can still affect what reaches trial. Anyone sharing a dramatic “case over” headline should identify the actual order and its scope.