Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael E. Whitaker has kicked the long-running civil fight involving Wade Robson, James Safechuck and companies tied to Michael Jackson into the next decade, setting a new jury trial date of Feb. 14, 2028. The schedule, issued this month, also keeps a case-management hearing on the calendar for September to monitor discovery. The shift nudges what had been expected as a late-2026 courtroom showdown further out and gives both sides extra time to keep grinding through documents and depositions.
Judge Locks In New Trial Date
Judge Whitaker set the consolidated trial for Feb. 14, 2028, with a September status hearing to keep the case on track, according to Rolling Stone. Plaintiffs' attorney John Carpenter pushed back on any idea that the new timetable came together without friction, saying "seamlessly is a bit much," as quoted in the report. The estate's lawyer, Jonathan Steinsapir, told the outlet he would need to check with his client about a proposal that a discovery referee also serve as a mediator.
What Robson And Safechuck Allege
Robson and Safechuck allege they were sexually abused by Jackson as boys and say that employees and corporate structures enabled or concealed the abuse. Robson filed suit in 2013, and Safechuck followed in 2014. Robson says he met Jackson at about age five after a dance contest, while Safechuck says he met the singer on a Pepsi commercial set, according to the Los Angeles Times. Both men were central figures in HBO's Leaving Neverland, and their civil claims target MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures rather than Jackson personally.
Appeals Ruling Opened The Door
In August 2023, a California appeals panel revived the lawsuits and ruled that a corporation that facilitates child abuse can owe an affirmative duty to protect victims even if the alleged abuser owns the company, according to AP News. The opinion reversed earlier dismissals and sent the case back to trial court but did not decide whether the alleged abuse occurred. The ruling narrowed some of the legal defenses available to the corporate defendants while leaving factual questions for a jury to sort out.
Where The Case Stands Now
The plaintiffs won the right to consolidate their cases and have been locked in wide-ranging discovery battles over thousands of pages of documents and depositions. The recent scheduling order is meant to corral that work ahead of the new trial date, Rolling Stone reported. Lawyers on both sides are still haggling over subpoenas, sealed materials and what evidence a jury will actually get to see. The September hearing is designed to keep those disputes moving so the case does not stall before jury selection.
What Is At Stake
The suits seek to hold Jackson's corporate entities responsible and could bring significant financial and reputational consequences for his estate and affiliated companies. Jackson previously resolved a 1993 criminal investigation with what coverage has described as a multi-million dollar payment, and attorneys say a civil verdict here could create new exposure for corporate defendants, according to the Los Angeles Times. Jurors will be asked to weigh decades-old claims, conflicting memories and complicated legal questions about what duties corporations owe to protect children.
Legal Implications
The complaints assert negligence, breach of duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress, while defense lawyers have signaled they will keep pressing procedural and evidentiary challenges. The appeals court's conclusion that corporations can owe a duty to protect narrows one major line of defense but does not resolve the underlying factual disputes or rule out future summary judgment attempts, as noted by AP News. Pretrial skirmishes are likely to continue over sealed files from the 1993 investigation and over which witnesses can be excluded or compelled.
The next formal step is the September hearing. After that, the Valentine’s Day 2028 trial date becomes the central target for both sides as they prepare for what could be a lengthy and closely watched proceeding. The estate continues to deny the allegations, and the plaintiffs maintain they are seeking accountability and a chance to present their evidence to jurors.
