As per the latest updates, Paris Jackson has filed a brand new opposition brief related to her case against her father’s real estate. Since last year, the singer has made headlines for calling out the handlers of Michael Jackson’s estate, John Branca and John McClain, for their misuse and mishandling of funds. Now, the star is opposing a motion that was filed by the estate’s attorneys earlier in January for Paris to award them USD 115,000 in other costs and legal fees.
Paris Jackson filed a new opposition brief in her case against the handlers of her father’s estate
Reported by PEOPLE, Paris Jackson has filed a new opposition brief in her case against the handlers of her father Michael Jackson’s estate. The opposition brief directly addresses the motion that was filed by the estate in January, asking for their attorney and legal fee to be paid by the musician. Talking about the matter, the report cites that Jackson has labeled this motion as “a waste of resources.”The brief was filed in a Los Angeles court on February 26. This is all related to an anti-SLAPP motion that was filed by the estate and granted by the court. After the January motion, Paris is citing that the anti-SLAPP motion, and whatever has followed through, “could not, and did not, have any impact on the litigation other than to cause delay.”In the brief, her reps have alleged that the estate already admitted to the claims of the motion not being viable. They stated that the estate “admitted that the [anti-SLAPP] motion was merely a ‘procedural’ objection, and its minimal effects were entirely overcome simply by filing a functionally identical pleading styled as a ‘motion’ rather than as a ‘petition.’”The case itself started off with Paris claiming that the estate is mismanaging funds in her father’s estate, and directly challenged their control over the estate and lack of transparency among other things. Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing as reported by a third-party source. The details provided represent allegations made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing, and a final verdict has not been reached. The publication does not claim that the allegations are true.
