The Lawsuits Thread

Discuss the latest Johnny Depp news, his career, past and future projects, and other related issues.
User avatar
RumLover
Posts: 1456
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:02 am
Location: Sydney, AUS
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by RumLover » Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:41 pm

justintime wrote:
Lbock wrote:On the LA Court site on the case summary and document pages, Rocky has added a top Beverly Hills trial attorney Pat Harris. I guess this wasn’t some farce to humiliate Depp paid for by Bloom or TMG. Looks like they are in it to win it. How is he getting paid? Could be contingency 30-40% of whatever Rocky wins. Can’t imagine he has the money to pay a normal hourly attorney charge on top of his other lawyer he has had from the start. Quite the read.
Attorney Pat Harris’s legal career has been marked by a series of remarkable trial successes that have built him a reputation as one of the nation’s premier trial attorneys. His courtroom work over the past two decades has won him recognition by his peers as one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America.
Thanks for that link, Lbock.

I still think Rocky has been put up to this from the get-go, especially given how much time lapsed from the date of the incident to his filing. It may very well have been seen as another humiliating slam-dunk against JD at the time, but I doubt Rocky was ever going to be allowed to fall flat on his face. “Someone” took him aside and made the lawsuit with the potential $$ grab sound easy as well as financially appealing. IMO, the initial extensive defendant list was just to get attention, the real target was JD all along.

I don’t for a minute believe Rocky has, to date, shelled out a dime and certainly don’t believe he would have even known where/how to engage his prior lawyer much less the magician he now, miraculously, has. Yes, THEY are and always have been, “in it to win it”.

There is one thing that seems glaringly off, however. If Mr. Harris’ bio is not overly hyped, the sleaze factor surrounding his new client, and the case in its entirety for that matter, would seem to have been extremely off-putting. Mr Harris seems to take those cases where his client is on the “right side of the roaring rapids” and that sure is not Rocky.

Does anyone know who is arguing this case for Johnny? Seems he will need someone who is a charismatic legal wizard, as well as someone also capable & willing to “go to the mat” for Johnny.
It is concerning. I can't imagine someone like that would take on a case unless they thought they could win. It would be bad for their reputation to lose a highly visible case, even if they were well paid for it.

User avatar
Ruby Begonia
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:31 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Ruby Begonia » Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:41 pm

reindeermoon wrote:Johnnys side said that he has lost jobs and money because she accused him of DV and it is still in the tabloids and in that Op ed from the Washington Post. Does Kaplan want to show him as a drug user, who has lost his work because of the drugs?...
Seems like big money is operating in both the Heard defamation case and the Brooks case to crush Johnny's career one way or another. So many with motives: TMG, Bloom (trial scheduled for December), Amber's rich/famous/other "connections" with something to hide. And how about the possible future defendants: ACLU, Washington Post, The Hollywood Reporter, People Magazine? And don't forget The Sun and Dan Wooten - what happens if Johnny wins that defamation case before the Virginia trial?

justintime
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:46 am

Ruby Begonia wrote: Seems like big money is operating in both the Heard defamation case and the Brooks case to crush Johnny's career one way or another.
I guess my concerns are not “what if Johnny wins . . .” (If only!!!), rather, what if before any of those other trials even begin, he loses (!) to that other gold digger, Rocky, now being represented by someone who seems to prioritize the “underdog” when taking on a case. How could someone usually so savvy in his case choices, and then in the courtroom, get it all so wrong this time around?

Certainly Mr. Harris is way beyond soul-selling for coin, yfame and/or publicity?? Assuming he was “convinced” representing Rocky was a healthy decision at this point in his career, I shudder to think the lengths he may be willing to go in order to land a win this time around. The biased media and all their relentless, cowardly contributors would never move on. The current surge in support for JD arose out of Kaplan’s blatantly poor preparation, not to mention underhanded choices (blackmail, no less!) at last week’s hearing. I don’t have any sense of where people’s sentiments lie in the Brooks suit and haven’t read any “comment reactions” to this current turn of events.

By the way, thank you Lbock for the update on JD’s request to have the case reclassified (I hope him filing this request doesn’t work against him; so disturbing it was denied) as well as the other motions still pending:
Lbock wrote: . . . ]His request was denied and it stands as an unlimited case (over $25k in claim and punitive damages).
Perhaps the “no limit” ruling re claim amount and damages, together with no rulings yet on the other limine motions filed (VERY pertinent in this case; see above) were specifically appealing in getting Mr. Harris to climb aboard. Ughhhh. Suddenly, the line, “Don’t believe, can’t believe, don’t believe in humans anymore.” in Johnny’s (and Tommy’s) new song is just chillingly appropriate. . .
"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: 983
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:43 am

The alleged assault was first reported by Page Six May 7 2018. . (The incident happened April 12 2017)
When the well-liked worker told Depp, “I’m just doing my job,” a source said Depp tried to punch him in the ribs. But the weak blow didn’t make an impact, and Depp yelled, “I’ll give you $100,000 to punch me right now!” The stunned staffer stood still, and Depp was finally pulled away.
Coincidence? Rocky later filed a lawsuit on July 6 2018. TMG reached a settlement with Johnny later that month July 16 2018. I have a court doc that shows soon after Johnny originally filed suit, TMG attempted to settle. Johnny denied them. At the end of the meeting someone allegedly overheard TMG threatening to destroy Johnny... (I can’t upload images here but here is the tweet with the court document)
(Sorry if I’m linking the twitter post incorrectly)
[twitter]https://twitter.com/laurabockov/status/ ... 42497?s=21[/twitter]

Also re reclassify filing: It was learned through discovery Rocky at no time sought medical attention of any kind. Since April 2017. That’s why Johnny wanted it limited. However, after November 2018 (presumably after answering the interrogatories) Rocky did seek medical treatment of some kind. As a result, the judge couldn’t ascertain that the damages would in fact be less than $25k. That would be left up to a jury. Thus, limited request denied
This is what was made public

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1175
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:54 am

Doesn't Johnny have a witness with videotape which shows that Johnny never hit the guy? From reading the complaint (especially the end), he is not seeking money for any injuries, he is seeking compensation mainly for psychological and emotional distress from Johnny allegedly yelling and threatening him in front of the crew, causing humiliation and mental anguish. If he had any medical treatment it was probably a visit to a psychiatrist, on the advice of his lawyer. Johnny is alleging self defense although I don't know why. Does anyone have a link to Johnny's answer to the complaint?
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:19 am

ForeverYoung, here is what I found. This has a copy of the script supervisors official declaration for court. It was photos she took, not video. Her role is to take extensive photos during shoots. When they reset to redo a shoot, or different angle, her job is to make sure Johnny's tie is on the same, jacket on or off, coffee right hand or left, etc.

Johnny's full response wasn't printed. Only excerpts which was sad (I bought this one). In his court document opposition he filed, the first paragraph said he categorically denied all accusations. So he did deny hitting him. But the media (including The Blast didn't report it correctly). He also said that any "injuries" Rocky incurred (which included emotional, etc) were of his own doing because of his behavior.

The self-defense claim is actually the "self-defense or in defense of others" doctrine. Because the Media didn't know about the homeless woman, they just assumed he was claiming self-defense and never reported otherwise.

UPDATE: I found my tweet that had the court document excerpt
[twitter]https://twitter.com/LauraBockov/status/ ... 50528?s=20[/twitter]

This also: Depp and Furman acted in fear of harm (or harm of others). That Rocky’s own behavior contributed to whatever transpired and therefore no one is at fault or both are equally at fault. These claims also from the court docs.
[twitter]https://twitter.com/LauraBockov/status/ ... 10464?s=20[/twitter]

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1175
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:34 pm

Thanks. Something tells me we're not getting the full story from either side. :perplexed2:
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
Lbock
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:12 pm

I'm wondering if Waldman kept this buried as much as possible as its a crap shoot case. Self-Defense of others is difficult in general. When is enough too much? Where is the line drawn for defending others. Did Johnny act as the women would have if she were able or prepared to?

1. Reasonably believe that the other person is in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully,
2. Reasonably believe that you need to use force to prevent this, and
3. Use no more force than necessary.

Juries might be unsympathetic against Johnny just because of his rumored history. I don't think settlement was in the cards. Someone pushed Rocky to do this and expects it to go to trial to do as much PR damage to Johnny as possible. That is my true belief. It was done before the Op-Ed or Defamation case ever even thought of. Attorney Kaplan is capitalizing on it by making sure she produces everything she can to taint a jury that he is abusive, a drug addict and alcoholic playing right to Rocky's claims. A guilty verdict against Johnny for assault would surely help her and AH. Also, the negative publicity Kaplan put out could well be why the new high power attorney (Pat Harris) signed on for Brooks. Kaplan practically served this case up on a silver platter to him with her filings and position with TimesUp. (But that is speculation on my part)

My mom doesn't follow Johnny much at all, but has read up on the media reports that I show her. I asked her opinion. She said, with as much smoke as has been going for years around Johnny, its reasonable to believe there is a fire in there somewhere (where there is smoke, there is fire) :smh: I hope the jury doesn't feel that way too.

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1175
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:40 pm

Kaplan is using whatever dirty tricks she can because they don't have a defense. Rocky jumped on a money lawsuit as soon as he was probably presented with paperwork agreeing not to sue, which he refused to sign. It's kind of like when you're in an accident and an insurance agent shows up at your house with a check before you have filed a lawsuit. You know right away your case is worth something. They would not have presented Rocky with paperwork agreeing not to sue if nothing happened. Johnny might have gotten in his face and "humiliated" him (even though he was protecting a homeless woman) but there is no proof Johnny hit the guy. Rocky just threw that in to make it sound better, imo. There has to be tons of witnesses including the police officer that was there.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

User avatar
meeps
Posts: 3377
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 5:13 am
Location: Hiding in my imagination?
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by meeps » Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:36 pm

Lbock wrote:My mom doesn't follow Johnny much at all, but has read up on the media reports that I show her. I asked her opinion. She said, with as much smoke as has been going for years around Johnny, its reasonable to believe there is a fire in there somewhere (where there is smoke, there is fire) :smh: I hope the jury doesn't feel that way too.
Smoke, yes. But what is producing that smoke; a controlled fire started by movie stuntmen and supervised by experienced fire fighters, or a wildfire in a very dry California forest?
I still think that some pretty powerful people got mad at Johnny for one reason or another, and circumstances - Johnny's wish to start anew after Amber, and sueing TMG and Bloom - gave them an excellent opportunity to ruin him. Helped along by Johnny being honest enough to not having kept the squeaky clean (and often fake) facade up other Hollywood stars try to maintain :-/

justintime
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by justintime » Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:42 am

Does anyone know when the Brooks/Depp trial is set to start? Have any witness lists been submitted on either side? Has a Judge been assigned yet? Thank you - don’t remember reading anything about the particulars of this proceeding, unlike the others.
"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: 983
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by Lbock » Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:50 am

justintime wrote:Does anyone know when the Brooks/Depp trial is set to start?
All I see from LACourt.org Case Number: BC713123 (haven't seen any witness list)
10/07/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference
10/21/2019 at 09:30 AM in Department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial

User avatar
ForeverYoung
Posts: 1175
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:25 pm
Status: Offline

Re: The Lawsuits Thread

Unread post by ForeverYoung » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:51 am

Lbock wrote:
justintime wrote:Does anyone know when the Brooks/Depp trial is set to start?
All I see from LACourt.org Case Number: BC713123 (haven't seen any witness list)
10/07/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference
10/21/2019 at 09:30 AM in Department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial
I think this case is going to settle right before the trial starts or on the day of trial, which is not uncommon. I don't see him getting payment for physical injuries, which he is not seeking anyway, but he might be entitled to some kind of "emotional distress" if in fact, he was "humiliated" in front of his peers like the complaint says. 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.
“Growing old is unavoidable, but never growing up is possible."

justintime
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 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: 983
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:43 pm
Status: Offline

Re: 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.