Why James Safechuck’s Lawsuit Was Dismissed: Legal Grounds Behind the 2017 Ruling

Mar 17, 2020

James’s lawsuit was dismissed in 2017 under circumstances similar to Wade’s case. However, while Wade’s claim was dismissed via summary judgment—a ruling made without a full trial—James’s case was thrown out through a demurrer. A demurrer is a legal objection where the defendant does not dispute the truth of the allegations but argues that, even if true, they do not constitute grounds for legal action.

A central issue in James’s case was his inability to establish a clear employment relationship with the companies he sought to hold accountable for the alleged abuse. Without proving this connection, his claims had no legal basis under employer liability laws.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2014, was dismissed in July 2017. The judge ruled that James had “filed his action 10 years late, and his action is precluded by the statute of limitations.” This decision closely mirrored the circumstances surrounding Wade’s failed lawsuit in 2015.

Corporate Liability and Legal Arguments

Beyond the statute of limitations issue, James faced another significant challenge: linking the alleged abuse to the corporate entities he was suing. The judge firmly rejected this argument, stating:

“There is a legal duty only when there is a relationship and some ability to control the author.”

This ruling reinforced a crucial legal principle: corporate entities cannot be held responsible for an individual’s actions unless they directly control that person within an employment or contractual framework.

James argued that he had been hired by two touring companies in the late 1980s, but MJJ Ventures—one of the named defendants—did not file its articles of incorporation until 1991. As a result, it did not legally exist at the time of the alleged abuse and could not be held accountable.

Regarding James’s employment with MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions in 1995, the judge noted:

“This employment appears to the court to be a more traditional and formal employment relationship than the alleged employment relationship that took place in 1988 (…) While it is not entirely clear when the sexual abuse ceased, it appears that the abuse continued until 1992, when James reached puberty. That is, the companies would not be liable for any abuse because the abuse did not occur during the time James was hired.”

Implications of the Ruling

One argument against fabrication is the timeline of events. If James were falsely constructing his allegations, he would likely have placed the abuse within his period of formal employment, strengthening his case by linking it to an official employer-employee relationship. The fact that his claim does not follow this pattern suggests that his timeline was not altered to fit a legal narrative.

The judge further ruled:

“As plaintiff cannot allege some ability to control 100 percent of the shareholders and owners of the defendant entities that perpetrated the abuse under these circumstances, these causes of action cannot stand (the defence’s motion to dismiss).” (Page 18)

This statement reinforced the court’s stance that liability could not be assigned to the corporations without direct control over the alleged perpetrator.

Future Prospects for the Case

Ultimately, the outcome of James’s lawsuit closely mirrored Wade's:

• The companies were not found liable.
• The claim was time-barred, preventing James from meeting the legal exception needed to surpass the statute of limitations.

However, California has since extended its statute of limitations for cases involving sexual abuse. This change in legislation allowed previously dismissed cases, including those filed by Wade and James, to move forward again.

With the courts now granting permission for these lawsuits to proceed, there remains hope that the legal system may provide a more comprehensive review of the claims. While the outcome remains uncertain, the updated legal framework has reopened the possibility of justice being served.