The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:36 pm

:tommygun: Update from The Blast on the Brooks v Depp City of Lies case:




Johnny Depp Accuses Alleged Assault Victim of Failing To Turn Over Medical Records by Ryan Naumann

Johnny Depp is calling out the crew member suing him over an alleged assault, saying the man has no proof of his injuries.

According to court documents obtained by The Blast, Depp is back in court defending himself in the lawsuit brought by Gregg “Rocky” Brooks.

In his suit, Brooks accuses Depp of drunkenly punching him on the set for “City of Lies”. Depp denies the allegations and got another crew member to back him up.

In newly filed documents, Depp is adamant he “never punched Mr. Brooks that night or any other night.”

The actor accuses Brooks of never being able to identity any “tangible injury that actually resulted from the alleged incident.”

Depp claims Brooks has never received medical treatment over the alleged assault. He also accuses Brooks of failing to present any medical bill or record.

He adds, “Plaintiff has never so much as taken over-the-counter pain medication as a result of the alleged incident.” Depp calls the claims in the lawsuit “not fictitious” and “trivial.”

Depp says Brooks has not been damaged by him, let alone the $70,000 + he is seeking. The actor wants the case dismissed immediately.

A judge has yet to rule.

Earlier this year, Brooks sued Depp accusing him of punching him on the set of the upcoming film "City of Lies."

Brooks, who was a location manager, claimed he was trying to enforce permit restrictions on the set on April 13, 2017. They were filming the film about the deaths of Tupac and Biggie Smalls in Downtown Los Angeles.

The location manager claimed they had a permit to shoot until 7:00 PM outside and 10:00 PM inside, and Brooks was able to get the permit extended multiple times to accommodate the actor who wanted to direct a longer version of a scene but could not get any more extension.

He then told the director the shooting would have to halt production, and the director allegedly told Brooks “Why don’t you tell that to Johnny Depp?”

Brooks went to get an on-set police officer to help him tell Depp, but before he could Depp approached him yelling, “Who the f--k are you? You have no right to tell me what to do!”

He tried to explain the situation but then Depp allegedly punched him twice in the lower side of his rib cage. Depp is accused of yelling, “I will give you $100,000 to punch me in the face right now!”

Brooks claimed Depp’s breath smelled of alcohol and said the actor's bodyguards had to intervene to stop the situation. He was fired from the film three days later when he refused to sign a release over the incident.

Depp fired back at the lawsuit demanding it be tossed out of court.

The actor denies all allegations of wrongdoing in the lawsuit and says his alleged actions were done in self-defense.

He accuses Brooks of willfully and maliciously acting out and conducting his activities in a way that made him fear for his safety on set. Further, he claims Brooks did not comply with the directions of his employer and, as a result, is demanding the entire case be dismissed.

Back in December 2018, Brooks dismissed "City of Lies" director Brad Furman and only continuing on with his case against Depp.

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:55 pm

I think this is great. Johnny basically saying put up or shut up. If Brooks doesn’t come up with concrete evidence in their answer, I think Johnny might file a formal judgement for dismissal

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:06 pm

Lbock wrote:I think this is great. Johnny basically saying put up or shut up. If Brooks doesn’t come up with concrete evidence in their answer, I think Johnny might file a formal judgement for dismissal
Johnny's team was recently trying to get this case moved to a court that considered cases with a maximum value of $25,000 instead of $70,000. I wonder if today's Blast story is material from that court discussion?

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:11 pm

Ruby Begonia wrote:
Lbock wrote:I think this is great. Johnny basically saying put up or shut up. If Brooks doesn’t come up with concrete evidence in their answer, I think Johnny might file a formal judgement for dismissal
Johnny's team was recently trying to get this case moved to a court that considered cases with a maximum value of $25,000 instead of $70,000. I wonder if today's Blast story is material from that court discussion?
Johnny filed to change the case from unlimited to limited (no more than $25k which also brings limitations favorable to a defendant). Brooks filed an opposition saying he had at least $70 k from medical and lost wages. Depp team just filed an opposition to Brooks opposition saying he had no medical claims etc. As far as pay my opinion is Johnny didn’t fire him. One of the other two defendants he already dismissed did that. So Johnny shouldn’t be responsible for lost wage. That’s just my opinion

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:39 pm

Lbock wrote:...So Johnny shouldn’t be responsible for lost wage. That’s just my opinion
:toastingpirates: Agreed! And thanks for the helpful case details!

User avatar
In-too-Depp
Posts: 165579
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:20 pm
Location: Walking my beat in deepest UK
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by In-too-Depp » Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:17 pm



Johnny Depp Says Amber Heard is "Masquerading" as an Abuse Survivor

Article by Mike Wallace
The Blast.com
6th September 2019

Johnny Depp does not want Amber Heard to keep details of their lawsuit private because he argues that the "objective facts" in this case proves his innocence.

According to legal documents obtained by The Blast, Depp and his legal team are opposing a motion filed by Heard, which asked the court to keep certain information about the lawsuit from the public.

Depp claims in the filing, "It would be grossly unfair to allow Ms. Heard – who has already disseminated to the media and the public as much defamatory material about her former husband as she could concoct – to now hide the objective facts that reveal her falsehoods behind an artificial wall of confidentiality."

It continues, "Moreover, Mr. Depp is suing Ms. Heard for objectively disprovable lies that she and a few of her confederates and representatives have told about Mr. Depp in the media. The Protective Order Ms. Heard now seeks would perversely allow all these false and damaging public statements to stand uncorrected."

As we reported, Johnny sued Amber in Virginia court for defamation, after the actress penned an op-ed in the Washington Post about her life as a domestic violence victim.

Depp's suit, he claims, was filed to exonerate himself and claims he is innocent of any abuse against Amber.

"Only the truth can restore the incalculable damage that Ms. Heard has inflicted on Mr. Depp. Mr. Depp, whose reputation has suffered severe harm from these false claims, should have the right to the restorative transparency of the truth that Ms. Heard seeks to hide," the documents read.

Johnny Depp points to other prior relationships, pointing out he has never been accused of this in the past and Amber is the one who has a record of abuse.

"Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard were married for only fifteen months, and the two had no children together. Mr. Depp has two children from a longstanding relationship with Vanessa Paridis, with whom he remains close. Prior to his marriage to Ms. Heard, no one had ever accused Mr. Depp of domestic violence. By contrast, Ms. Heard was arrested in a Washington State airport, and spent the night in jail, for domestic violence against her former partner/wife witnessed by a police officer."

The Blast broke the story, Amber believes the release of highly embarrassing and sensitive information would not only negatively affect her, but would significantly harm her family and friends.

Johnny disagrees, and argues Amber should not be allowed to hide behind a "wall of confidentiality" that he believes are based upon her alleged lies.

"Although she has not yet made the assertion, being embarrassed by the factual evisceration of one’s lies would not meet the standard. The court should not allow Ms. Heard to use confidentiality as both a sword and a shield," he argues.

And Wit, was his vain frivolous pretence
Of pleasing others, at his own expense

Rochester ,"Satyr" on Man

User avatar
Chocolat
Posts: 9659
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:06 pm

From Mr. Adam Waldman:

Depp's attorney Adam Waldman tells The Blast,

"Amber Heard didn’t want to keep things secret when she concocted her diabolical abuse hoax, sought a temporary restraining order with painted on bruises, aimed her fake story at Johnny Depp through the world’s media, or had her hoax-assisting friend iO Tillett Wright publish an op ed titled 'Why I called 911.’ But now, as the evidence blows her story to smithereens, Amber Heard suddenly wants to keep the truth a secret. Today, Johnny Depp filed an opposition motion requesting that all the evidence in his defamation case be publicly available so his reputation may be returned to him."

He added, "Lies grow in darkness; sunlight is the best disinfectant. We have opposed Amber Heard’s attempt to hide the truth because injustice must be exposed to be defeated."

~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

User avatar
SnoopyDances
Posts: 51004
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:12 pm
Location: Tashmore Lake
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by SnoopyDances » Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:41 pm

I like that guy.

User avatar
Larkwoodgirl
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 6:06 pm
Location: Texas across the pond
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Larkwoodgirl » Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:26 pm

The "restorative transparency of the truth," is about to hit AH where it hurts.
""We shall never cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." T.S. Eliot

User avatar
Chocolat
Posts: 9659
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:31 pm

SnoopyDances wrote:I like that guy.
Yep, and I especially like the use of "smithereens".
~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

justintime
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:31 am

Astounding! Ah has apparently hired a new, far more savvy and renowned lawyer (Roberta Kaplan ) and is filing another dismissal request based on a new argument. THR seems to imply the request is going to be considered and, therefore, once again the possibility of dismissal exists!

Who is funding this maneuver? And how long can this revisiting of the same request be honored? How many angles is she allowed to present before someone slams the gavel and says “enough!”??

Perhaps even more disturbing, why would an attorney of Kaplan’s caliber choose to become embroiled in a case with a client so totally devoid of even a scintilla of integrity?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/t ... ssion=true
"Stay low." ~ JD
"I don't like it in here . . . it's terribly crowded." ~ Hatter
"There's something about Johnny that breaks your heart." ~ John Logan, ST
"Tear deeper, Mother." ~ Wilmot

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:23 am

All requests have to be "considered" no matter what they are. Johnny's team will oppose like they always do and the judge would have to take that into "consideration" too. Johnny has a great team and I have no doubt they will prevail. :pirategunshot:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Chocolat
Posts: 9659
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:52 am
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Chocolat » Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:01 am

justintime wrote:Astounding! Ah has apparently hired a new, far more savvy and renowned lawyer (Roberta Kaplan ) and is filing another dismissal request based on a new argument. THR seems to imply the request is going to be considered and, therefore, once again the possibility of dismissal exists!

Who is funding this maneuver? And how long can this revisiting of the same request be honored? How many angles is she allowed to present before someone slams the gavel and says “enough!”??

Perhaps even more disturbing, why would an attorney of Kaplan’s caliber choose to become embroiled in a case with a client so totally devoid of even a scintilla of integrity?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/t ... ssion=true

That is the question many are asking, justintime. This is when I put the calling out for a Johnny fan, who is also an expert in the legal field*, to help us understand these types of questions and actions. Is there any solid ground to ask for a second dismissal of the case? Isn't it thought to be an insult to the judge, especially when she and her new lawyer question the reader's understanding of the English language? That sounds like an awfully weak defense for her to claim that the article isn't about Johnny. She's talking about domestic abuse from her experience. Certainly, she wasn't talking about her ex-girlfriend/wife, Tasya Van Ree. Moreover, according to Adam Waldman, in support of the article, IO Tillett Write published a piece on why she called 911, directly relating to Amber Heard's alleged experience. My guess is this is a sneaky tactic in order to intimidate Johnny's fans, who through social media, are definitely changing the public's opinion of Amber Heard's phony claims. In my opinion, they need a boost to her side to force the impression that she has any chance of a rebound, when realistically, Amber Heard is rapidly falling from grace.

*Thank you ForeverYoung for your input.
~ MAGICK HAPPENS ~
Through the years, for the many xoxo's, giggles & kindness...
thank you & love you Johnny.

Ade3
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 8:06 am
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ade3 » Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:12 am

I imagine that for some lawyers - the opportunity to argue pedantic legal points (and potentially further their reputations) - really motivates them. They aren't necessarily that invested in whether their client is right or wrong - just in testing the limits of the law. It would be monstrous for AH to get away with this on a technicality. It is so clear that she is doing everything to avoid court.

I can understand lawyers representing her because it's a big high profile case - what I still cannot understand is the parts of the media (not all but parts) that simply don't give any lines to consider that the fact is she may be lying. I've just been trying to find her Op-Ed to re-read it and I found a Grazia article which I just don't understand how anyone could attach their name to. It moaned about the fact that a survey of social media comments about their divorce found that one third of people outright said she was lying (and this is before the huge amount of evidence came out - this is just on the fact that the police and other witnesses said there were no bruises and the small matter of her DV record). Apparently just 9 percent of comments blamed Johnny. And Grazia's conclusion is that this was all because people liked Johnny and he was in their favourite films etc. It failed to give any mention at all about another possibility. It is so screamingly obvious my goodness even Perez Hilton now says he is forced to believe Johnny.

I was in such a grump about this last night because, once again, her antics just happened to coincide with him doing something big. And the pictures and reception he got were just so wonderful. And yet I went to bed worrying again that she'll get away with it.

But then I reasoned - whatever happens, so much evidence has been released against her. And amongst us we tend to say that she has got away with it but really has she? Yes in the sense that she has not yet received any serious punishment but think of it this way. Time is running out for her. Ever since she wrapped on Aquaman she should have been working non-stop. She was in a big franchise film which no thanks to her (my view) was a success. She had two very famous partners. She should be so much in demand. Think of Johnny's career at her age. Think of other pretty if only ok actresses. She doesn't have a deep well of acting talent to fall back on, so she needs to make it count now.

We also say she is the darling of the MeToo movement. I see her as having given herself that crown. Remember that get together at Cannes I think it was in 2018 when she got all dressed up on instagram and made it seem as if she was with the 80 other actresses or however many it was - but she wasn't there - wasn't invited. The 20 something women who I work with mostly don't know who she is, those that do think she's awful.

I apologise for this long rant. But when I am seething about her latest nonsense, I go to an article or post about her and read 90 percent (often 100 percent) negative comments.

Also - just as her new lawyer has limbered up her legalese to make an argument - so will Johnny's.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:05 pm

Chocolat wrote:
justintime wrote:Astounding! Ah has apparently hired a new, far more savvy and renowned lawyer (Roberta Kaplan ) and is filing another dismissal request based on a new argument. THR seems to imply the request is going to be considered and, therefore, once again the possibility of dismissal exists!

Who is funding this maneuver? And how long can this revisiting of the same request be honored? How many angles is she allowed to present before someone slams the gavel and says “enough!”??

Perhaps even more disturbing, why would an attorney of Kaplan’s caliber choose to become embroiled in a case with a client so totally devoid of even a scintilla of integrity?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/t ... ssion=true

That is the question many are asking, justintime. This is when I put the calling out for a Johnny fan, who is also an expert in the legal field*, to help us understand these types of questions and actions. Is there any solid ground to ask for a second dismissal of the case? Isn't it thought to be an insult to the judge, especially when she and her new lawyer question the reader's understanding of the English language? That sounds like an awfully weak defense for her to claim that the article isn't about Johnny. She's talking about domestic abuse from her experience. Certainly, she wasn't talking about her ex-girlfriend/wife, Tasya Van Ree. Moreover, according to Adam Waldman, in support of the article, IO Tillett Write published a piece on why she called 911, directly relating to Amber Heard's alleged experience. My guess is this is a sneaky tactic in order to intimidate Johnny's fans, who through social media, are definitely changing the public's opinion of Amber Heard's phony claims. In my opinion, they need a boost to her side to force the impression that she has any chance of a rebound, when realistically, Amber Heard is rapidly falling from grace.

*Thank you ForeverYoung for your input.
Frankly, I don't understand why she didn't just appeal the Judge's order but here is what I found which might help with some explanation'
"What Happens After I File My Motion to Dismiss?
Once you file and serve the government your motion, the court will likely give the opponent the opportunity to respond to the motion and then they may set a court date for both sides to present their arguments.

If your motion is denied, the case against you will continue. Depending on the outcome of other pretrial motions relating to admissible evidence or your discovery of the evidence against you, you may be able to file another motion to dismiss based on this new information.

If your motion is granted, then the charges are thrown out. However, depending on why the case was dismissed, the government may be able to refile charges against you after correcting the mistake that caused the dismissal.

In some cases, the government is prohibited from bringing charges again based on the same set of facts after a dismissal."

As for the big mouth friend iO, she said in her essay that she called the cops because she knew Amber would not do it BUT this is a different story from what Amber told so right there the stories don't add up. Besides, in iO's declaration she never said that Johnny was screaming or yelling at her and I think that would be pretty important to mention.

From what I can see, she doesn't have much support anymore. A lot of the posters on that DM site that were on her side are now saying they believe Johnny. There is one person who posts under at least 15 different names and it's really easy to spot because they just keep posting the same things over word for word.

I think the nail in her coffin is that letter her lawyer sent to his lawyer which refers to BOTH the divorce and alleged abuse. It says that she was willing to settle "all matters" if he gave into her demands. He said no and so she went and sold a fake picture to the media and filed a dv charge. If he had said yes, none of this would be happening. There would have been no "letters to her sisters", none of her stupid speeches, videos, interviews, articles, etc. She got herself into this mess and has nobody to blame but herself.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."