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
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.

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.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

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.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.