The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
justintime
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:22 am

Thank you, Lbock, for the LACourt info. Seems like there is a lot to be ruled upon before October 21st. If anyone is entitled to reparations based on “emotional distress” it’s got to be Johnny, not this pawn for someone with political ambitions (i.e. Attorney Harris); it took Rocky a whole year to realize his feelings were hurt for being called out on berating another human being. Seems Mr. Harris could be positioning himself for a chair in the extremely high profile February 3rd proceedings, his cup of tea.

I think you’re right, ForeverYoung, re a last minute settlement. But I highly doubt this will be the last we see of Mr. Harris.
"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
Lbock
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:26 pm

ForeverYoung wrote: I don't know how Johnny responded to that so my opinion is based purely on what I have seen so far. I know that Johnny denied hitting him but I don't know if he denied yelling at the guy. If the guy was presented with an agreement to sue, that's not a good sign.
From Johnny's initial response to Brooks claim:
GENERAL DENIAL "Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically each and every allegation of the Complaint and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. Answer Defendants further deny that Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct of Answering Defendants, and further generally and specifically deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any remedy or relief, legal, equitable, or otherwise in any sum whatsoever, as against Answering Defendant.

There were 16 pages and I think close to 40 affirmative defenses listed. (I'm at work and don't have the document with me but I have some excerpts) (An affirmative defense is a reason why a defendant should not have to pay damages even when the facts in the complaint are true. You can assert affirmative defenses while still denying the allegations in a complaint.)

Notable

Unclean hands doctrine: “[Un]Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine or the dirty hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with “unclean hands”. Meaning: basically says that you can’t already have done something wrong if you’re going to sue someone for doing something wrong, if those two wrongs are related. A plaintiff has to answer for his own misconduct in the action. It prevents "a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression"

Pari Delicto: most commonly used in situations when both parties to a civil lawsuit are equally at fault for the wrongdoing. It basically means that, because both parties are equally to blame, the court will side with neither party.

Johnny didn't exactly deny hitting or anything else. It is the burden of Brooks to prove Johnny did so, so he doesn't need to specifically deny it verbatim. Although he has in media and the script supervisor said no hits were thrown.

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:56 pm

Brooks is not seeking relief for bodily injury. He only said in the complaint that he was hit. In the end, he is seeking relief for:

General damages
Punitive damages (emotional and psychological distress - such as humiliation and embaressment)
Cost of suit
Such other and further relief as the court may redeem

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.co ... int-wm.pdf
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:03 pm

He dismissed some of his Cause of Actions but is still suing for:
1) Assault & Battery
2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
3) Negligence
10) Negligent infliction of Emotional Distress.

He dismissed the other causes (4-9) along with his dismissal of Brad Furman. So he is still claiming Assault & Battery

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:15 pm

The media was reporting the allegation of Johnny hitting Brooks for a headline, imo because it sounds better than "Set Manager Alleges Johnny Depp Yelled and Humiliated Him in Front of the Production Crew." The stories are too far apart. He says Johnny hit him because he wanted production to end, Johnny says it was self inflicted and never hit him, then all of a sudden we have set witness with pics who says that Johnny was protecting a homeless woman. The only thing I can really believe is that there was an exchange of words that should not have happened.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:57 pm

I can't buy the documents at this time, but it looks like Rocky is opposing Johnny and wants to bring in his drug/alcohol allegations and his dispute with AH
09/25/2019 Opposition (PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE N0.4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING DISPUTES BETWEEN JOHN C. DEPP, II AND NONPARTY AMBER LAURA HEARD)
Filed by Gregg "Rocky" Brooks (Plaintiff)

09/25/2019 Opposition (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE N0.2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING ALLEGED DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE BY JOHN C. DEPP, II)
Filed by Gregg "Rocky" Brooks (Plaintiff)
As of now, they are unproven allegations and would be highly prejudicial, I imagine. With AH, at the very least, the police cleared him back then. I assume the best they have for the drugs/alcohol would be the Rolling Stone article (in his own words). But that didn't necessarily take place or affect his working on City of Lies. He only stated he drank while writing his memoir until he couldn't see from tears.

UPDATE:
Johnny's team filed too. I'd love to know what that paragraph is all about that Rocky wants excluded. Happened right before the "incident" apparently.
09/24/2019 Opposition (to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Paragraph 12 of the Film LA Monitor Report)
Filed by John C. Depp (Defendant); Infinitum Nihil (Defendant)
Last edited by Lbock on Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:25 pm

ForeverYoung wrote:Brooks is not seeking relief for bodily injury. He only said in the complaint that he was hit. In the end, he is seeking relief for:

General damages
Punitive damages (emotional and psychological distress - such as humiliation and embaressment)
Cost of suit
Such other and further relief as the court may redeem

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.co ... int-wm.pdf
So basically this is just a big nuisance suit. It seems to hinge on the alleged assault and battery charge. If he cannot provide evidence to the assault, (based on what I have read, it didn't happen) then I think the rest of his claims will be dismissed.
""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
ForeverYoung
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:48 pm

Larkwoodgirl wrote:So basically this is just a big nuisance suit. It seems to hinge on the alleged assault and battery charge. If he cannot provide evidence to the assault, (based on what I have read, it didn't happen) then I think the rest of his claims will be dismissed.
I'm not sure. If he has no real medical records and there are witnesses to prove he was not hit then he won't get any money for that. I work in place where people get yelled at and "humiliated" in front of their peers all the time but if I were presented with an agreement not to sue I would think twice about signing it no matter what happened. The guy just looks like a big cry baby to me jumping on the Depp gravy train but a Judge could see this as a case where certain people should be held accountable for harassment in the workplace, if in fact, there is evidence of that really took place here. All this is just my opinion based on what I have seen and read and my having a lawyer in the family who has now passed on but I learned a lot.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:39 am

Rocky Documents are up. Rocky wants past Drug and Alcohol allegations in. It has allot of typos and is filed by his original attorney. I can only preview the first page, but it is stating he has witnesses...
"A. Defendant Depp's Drug And Alcohol Use Is Relevant and Material To This Case.
Plaintiff and his witnesses paint a specific picture of what transpired on the set during the
filing of City of Lies. Defendant John C. Depp, II ("Defendant Depp") was question and blamed
other for the delays in the production, however, testimony will reveal, the stress and delay caused during the filing of City of Lies which culminated in his conduct of April 12, 2017, were... "
Last edited by Lbock on Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:46 am

Also, first page to include AH in Rocky argument. (Also filed by his original attorney)
"Plaintiff, Gregg "Rocky" Brooks ("Plaintiff') hereby submits his opposition to Defendants'
MOTION IN LIMINE No. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING
DISPUTES BETWEEN JOHN C. DEPP, II AND NONPARTY AMBER LAURA HEARD AS
follows:
A. Defendant's Propensity For Violent Aggressive Behavior Is Relevant To This Case.
Plaintiff contends in his complaint that Defendant John C. Depp, II ("Defendant Depp")
was violent and aggressive towards him without provocation, while Plaintiff was doing his job...."

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:01 am

Just to be clear:
Rocky has one motion and Johnny has 4. There is a Final Status Conference on 10/7/19 so maybe the Judge will her these motions on that date. This was copied from the court's listing, with some revisions of my own to help understand it better.
https://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/casesummary.aspx?

09/13/2019 Rocky's Motion in Limine (NO. 1)

09/13/2019 Johnny's Motion in Limine (No. 1 to Bifurcate the Punitive Damages (Emotional Distress) Phase of the Trial)

09/13/2019 Johnny's Motion in Limine (No. 2 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Alleged Drug and Alcohol Use by John C. Depp, II)

09/13/2019 Johnny's Motion in Limine (No. 3 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Other Lawsuits)

09/13/2019 Johnny's Motion in Limine (No. 4 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Disputes with Amber Heard)

09/24/2019 Johnny's Opposition (to Rocky's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Paragraph 12 of the Film LA Monitor Report)

09/25/2019 Rocky's Opposition ('Johnny's MOTION IN LIMINE N0.2 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING ALLEGED DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE BY JOHN C. DEPP, II)

09/25/2019 Rocky's Opposition (Johnny's OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE N0.4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING DISPUTES BETWEEN JOHN C. DEPP, II AND NONPARTY AMBER LAURA HEARD)
Filed by Gregg "Rocky" Brooks (Plaintiff)
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:44 pm

The Blast has a new article about Rocky that has snippets of the documents. It was a downer so I didn't post here, but has been updated with Adam Waldman's Statement, YAY! Making some sense now...


Depp's lawyer, Adam Waldman, tells The Blast, "What to do when your punching hoax against Johnny Depp is disproven by multiple eyewitnesses and date- and time-stamped photographs? Try to link up with the other hoax that is also disproven by multiple eyewitnesses and photographs. How do we know? Rocky Brooks' lawyer threatened that she was "working with Amber Heard’s lawyers," although one hoax has nothing to do with the other. Throw in a few irrelevant smears against Johnny Depp for his past addiction and recovery, and you have the inadmissible-in-court PR strategy of every one of his opponents. Litigation is evidence- rather than PR-based, as our opponents continue to learn the hard way."

justintime
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:19 pm

Thanks a bunch, Lbock! I’ve read the court docs - all, at least once. I’m not a lawyer, no lawyers in this house to bounce anything off, just making myself crazy trying to make connections remembering this bit, that event, those pics, which date, etc. . . BUT, when Mr. Waldman has something to say I stop, read, and think. I indulge the hope that, just maybe, we can afford to “believe in humans” a little while longer.
"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
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:56 pm

:howdy: Thanks to Lbock, Justintime, ForeverYoung and everyone else who's paid for/posted documents from the LA Court site re the Brooks case.

Since the defamation case against Heard has not been decided, how can they use the unproven allegations from that case to support Brooks' claims? I know that lawyers from either side can allege whatever they want until a case is resolved, but this doesn't seem kosher. Maybe that's what Waldman means - it's PR and not anything that will be admitted for use in court. Kind of like doctored text messages, undated or original photos, etc.

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

The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:41 pm

I can't understand why Brooks attorney would want to hook up with Kaplan. Amber is losing that case and whatever evidence she presented there has no dates and times stamped so there is no real proof to support the allegation that Johnny is violent and abusive, imo.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."