Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Judge Dismisses Most Claims over 'Final' Jackson Tour

By Victor Li
July 29, 2010

A federal judge in Manhattan said “Beat It” to most counts in a $300 million suit filed against Michael Jackson's estate, Jackson's ex-manager, Frank Dileo, and Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) over promotional rights to the comeback tour the King of Pop was planning prior to his death last summer.

The plaintiff, AllGood Entertainment Inc., alleged in a May 2009 complaint (filed a month before Jackson died) that Jackson, through Dileo, had signed a deal to perform either a solo concert tour or a Jackson Family reunion concert to be promoted by AllGood. But months after striking its deal with Dileo, AllGood alleged, AllGood found out that Jackson had agreed to work with AEG on the This Is It series of shows scheduled to begin in London in the fall of 2009. AllGood claimed breach of contract, fraud and tortious interference against Jackson, Dileo and AEG.

But Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer found in AllGood Entertainment Inc. v. Dileo Entertainment and Touring Inc., 09 Civ. 5377, that there were “no specific factual allegations” to support AllGood's claim for tortious interference and that AllGood's factual basis for fraud was “at best thin.” The district judge denied AllGood's request for an injunction, and granted defense motions to dismiss the fraud and tortious interference claims. However, he denied a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim, finding there was sufficient uncertainty for it to proceed. But Judge Baer seemed skeptical about whether AllGood even had an enforceable contract with Dileo, agreeing with defendants that the document in question was more of a letter of intent, rather than a binding offer and acceptance.

AEG's lead counsel, Kathleen Ann Jorrie of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, told us that AEG is now out of the case because it is not a party to the surviving breach-of- contract claim. Howard Weitzman of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump & Aldisert, who is counsel to Jackson's estate, says he intends to file a summary judgment motion on the contract claim. (Frank Dileo, according to the docket, was represented by Greenberg Traurig. He could not be reached for comment.)

Plaintiffs' lawyers Ira Scot Meyerowitz and Jon Damon Jekielek of Meyerowitz Jekielek said: “We've gone forward with depositions and discovery over the last couple of months, and we're more confident in our claims against the remaining parties.”

Meyerowitz says he is not ready to give up on claims against AEG. “I may consider a motion for reconsideration. We believe there is knowledge on AEG's side; however, we don't have the smoking gun we need. What do you do when you have a person who is dead like Michael Jackson, who can't say he knew about the AllGood agreement and told AEG about it?”


Victor Li is a Reporter for ALM, publisher of Entertainment Law & Finance.

A federal judge in Manhattan said “Beat It” to most counts in a $300 million suit filed against Michael Jackson's estate, Jackson's ex-manager, Frank Dileo, and Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) over promotional rights to the comeback tour the King of Pop was planning prior to his death last summer.

The plaintiff, AllGood Entertainment Inc., alleged in a May 2009 complaint (filed a month before Jackson died) that Jackson, through Dileo, had signed a deal to perform either a solo concert tour or a Jackson Family reunion concert to be promoted by AllGood. But months after striking its deal with Dileo, AllGood alleged, AllGood found out that Jackson had agreed to work with AEG on the This Is It series of shows scheduled to begin in London in the fall of 2009. AllGood claimed breach of contract, fraud and tortious interference against Jackson, Dileo and AEG.

But Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer found in AllGood Entertainment Inc. v. Dileo Entertainment and Touring Inc., 09 Civ. 5377, that there were “no specific factual allegations” to support AllGood's claim for tortious interference and that AllGood's factual basis for fraud was “at best thin.” The district judge denied AllGood's request for an injunction, and granted defense motions to dismiss the fraud and tortious interference claims. However, he denied a motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim, finding there was sufficient uncertainty for it to proceed. But Judge Baer seemed skeptical about whether AllGood even had an enforceable contract with Dileo, agreeing with defendants that the document in question was more of a letter of intent, rather than a binding offer and acceptance.

AEG's lead counsel, Kathleen Ann Jorrie of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, told us that AEG is now out of the case because it is not a party to the surviving breach-of- contract claim. Howard Weitzman of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump & Aldisert, who is counsel to Jackson's estate, says he intends to file a summary judgment motion on the contract claim. (Frank Dileo, according to the docket, was represented by Greenberg Traurig. He could not be reached for comment.)

Plaintiffs' lawyers Ira Scot Meyerowitz and Jon Damon Jekielek of Meyerowitz Jekielek said: “We've gone forward with depositions and discovery over the last couple of months, and we're more confident in our claims against the remaining parties.”

Meyerowitz says he is not ready to give up on claims against AEG. “I may consider a motion for reconsideration. We believe there is knowledge on AEG's side; however, we don't have the smoking gun we need. What do you do when you have a person who is dead like Michael Jackson, who can't say he knew about the AllGood agreement and told AEG about it?”


Victor Li is a Reporter for ALM, publisher of Entertainment Law & Finance.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.