One of the big stories last year was the legal battle between Michael Jackson’s MJJ Productions and Julien’s Auctions over the disposition of Jackson-owned memorabilia consigned to the auction house. This was ultimately settled between the parties a few months before the pop star’s death. However, two other lawsuits linger, with legal action spilling into 2010.
The “Collection of Michael Jackson” auction event, which included Jackson’s memorabilia from his Neverland Ranch, was ultimately canceled at the 11th hour, with property returned to Jackson’s company in exchange for an undisclosed amount to be paid to Julien’s Auction.
Full details and past articles can be found via the link below:
David Gest v. Julien’s Auction House LLC
One development reported on previously followed the “Summer Sale” held by Julien’s Auctions, which included Michael Jackson memorabilia sourced outside of the assets which were previously consigned by (and returned to) MJJ Productions (see New Michael Jackson Related Legal Threat Against Julien’s Auctions… from David Gest).
As reported by The Sun in June 2009, Gest made the following comments:
I never consigned any of these items to Julien’s Auction House in LA. I have instructed my legal representatives Sheridans solicitors to sue the auction house and let buyers know this was not my auction.
I think it is terrible that the auction house would carry out a sale of items belonging to a man who had not been buried yet. Even if I once owned any of these items this should not have been misleadingly portrayed as my personal auction to the Press and buyers. I received no money from this sale.
Today, a Federal District Court filing and docket appeared on the Justia.com website (see Case Number 2:2010cv02032):
Gest v. Julien’s Auction House LLC
Plaintiff: David Gest Defendant: Julien’s Auction House LLC Miscellaneous: Dewun R. Settle Case Number: 2:2010cv02032 Filed: January 14, 2010 Court: Tennessee Western District Court Office: Memphis Office [ Court Info ] County: Shelby Presiding Judge: Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal Jurisdiction: Federal Question Jury Demanded By:
Richard Lapointe v. Julien’s Auctions, MJJ Productions, et al
Another lawsuit was filed late last year by one of the bidders in the “Collection of Michael Jackson” auction, who claims to have placed bids online prior to the auction being canceled following the settlement between MJJ Productions and Julien’s Auction House.
Richard Lapointe has filed suit against Julien’s Auctions and Darren Julien (along with several aliases), MJJ Productions, Tohme R. Tohme (President of MJJ Productions), Administrators of the Estate of Michael Jackson, and 100 unnamed defendants.
Lapointe seeks the items on which he had placed online absentee bids, or $5 million dollars plus damages.
I have reviewed the First Amended Complaint, filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 12/02/09 (Case No BC423284).
The Plaintiff, Lapointe, makes a number of allegations, and claims to have filed a “Creditor’s Claim” in the Jackson Probate Auction, and:
…seeks the transfer to Plaintiff of all items put up for auction, as described in detail below, for which Plaintiff was the highest bidder, or in the alternative, the sum of $5,000,000, which Plaintiff contends is their present market value and therefore, the amount in which Plaintiff has been injured.
The complaint goes on to make allegations about how the Defendants (Julien’s Auctions and MJJ Productions) “colluded among themselves” and “reached a secret agreement… to conduct a new auction at a time Defendants deem more profitable“.
In the Plaintiff’s causes of action, he claims that the Defendants “acted with malice, fraud or oppression, in conscious and intentional disregard of Plaintiff’s rights“. One of the causes of actions argues a violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act – Business & Professions Code section 17200:
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that after Defendants scrutinizes the online and absentee bids in the No Reserve Jackson Auction, Defendants colluded to “cancel” the auction in order to reap higher anticipated profits at a later date.
Further:
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that Defendants performed the above-mentioned acts with the intention and purpose of injuring Plaintiff in the operation of his livlihood and investments, and obtaining an illicit competitive advantage over Plaintiff.
Defendants threaten to, and unless restrained, will secret or disperse the unique Jackson items for which Plaintiff was the highest bidder and will hereby continue to interfere with business relations between Plaintiff and his customers, dealers, traders and fellow collectors, depriving Plaintiff of profits which are rightfully Plaintiff’s.
To those who monitor and participate in major auction house events, a standard disclaimer in the terms of the auction always contain a condition about having no guarantees about the execution of bids as well as reserving the discretion to pull lots from a sale. Below is an excerpt from the Julien’s Auctions website (see juliensauctions.com/terms.html):
Julien’s reserves the right to withdraw any property before the sale and will have no liability for doing so.
We reserve the right to accept or decline any bid. Bids must be for an entire lot and each lot constitutes a separate sale. All bids are per lot unless otherwise announced at a live sale by the auctioneer. Live auction lots will be sold in their numbered sequence unless the Auctioneer directs otherwise. It is unlawful and illegal for Bidders to collude, pool, or agree with another Bidder to pay less than the fair value for lot(s). Bidders participating in both live and online auctions acknowledge that the law provides for substantial penalties in the form of treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs for those who violate these provisions. For live auctions the auctioneer will have final discretion in the event that any dispute should arise between bidders. The auctioneer will determine the successful bidder, cancel the sale, or re-offer and resell the lot or lots in dispute. Julien’s will have final discretion to resolve any disputes arising after the sale and in online auctions. If any dispute arises our sale record is conclusive. Julien’s will execute order or absentee bids, and accept telephone bids as a courtesy to clients who are unable to attend the live auctions. Therefore we take no responsibility for any errors or omissions in connection with this service.
Subject to fulfillment of all of the conditions set forth herein, on the fall of the auctioneer’s hammer, title to the offered lot will pass to the highest bidder acknowledged by the auctioneer.
In registering to participate in online bidding, one would presume that Julien’s Auctions had all registrants agree to these or similar terms.
I have also reviewed the “Julien Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint”, which was filed 01/04/10.
In this answer is a “General Denial, which states:
…Defendants deny, generally and specifically, each and every allegation in the FAC [First Amended Complaint]. The Julien Defendants further deny that Plaintiff has been damaged in any manner, amount, or sum whatsoever, by reason of any act or omission on the part of any of the Julien Defendants or on the part of any of its agents, servants or employees. The Julien Defendants further demand strict proof and evidentiary support for each and every allegation of the FAC.
The response by Julien’s Auctions makes not of California Civil Code 128.7, which involves sanctions against parties and law firms which file frivolous and/or harassing lawsuits that are without merit. The response continues by outlining 45 defenses to the lawsuit, and closes with the following:
WHEREFORE, the Julien Defendants pray for judgment as follows:
1. That Plaintiff take nothing from the Julien Defendants by reason of his FAC;
2. That the FAC against the Julien Defendants be dismissed with prejudice;
3. That the Julien Defendants be awarded costs of suit; and
4. That the Julien Defendants be awarded any othe rand further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
It will be interesting and of relevance to the hobby at large to monitor the outcome of this case, to see if indeed it is dismissed and the Plaintiff is found responsible for the legal costs of the significant number of parties named in the action.
Jason DeBord