John Travolta Son Secrets, Priscilla Presley Incest Claims: Bombshell Court Filings

You may have thought that allegations. that Priscilla [music] Presley was. responsible for Lisa Marie and Elvis's. deaths that that was shocking. But in a. brand new filing, Priscilla Presley is. [music] now accused of having an. incestuous relationship with her son. And get this, that actress Riley Kio is. the biological mother of John Travolta. and Kelly Presley's [music] son. Yeah, stay with me on this. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. [music] I'm Jesse Weber. Now, look, as we're covering a story.

like this and we're trying to share this. story as quickly as possible and get you. these clips up as quickly as possible, if you're in the content creation game, if you're putting things out on social. media, this is what we use. It's called. Opus Clip. It's an all-in-one AI editor. that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform. through AI. Opus Clip generates B-roll, it refframes, and it even cleans up. audio. It is so easy to use. You just. visit opus.pro/sidebar, Pro/Sidebar. You. sign up, you upload, and in minutes, you. will have perfectly edited clips ready. to go. For Tik Tok, shorts, reals,

OpusClip is your one-stop shop. And. having a tool like OpusClip means that. our producers can get you viral. courtroom updates instantly. This is the. most powerful tool there is to help you. share ideas and edit like a pro. So, go. to opus.pro/sidebar. to create your videos today. Okay. Now, if you have been following us here on. Sidebar for a while, you may remember. that we have been covering this wild. lawsuit involving Priscilla Presley. And. before I even get into what is just a. shocking new set of accusations that.

honestly may take you a minute to wrap. your head around because now it involves. John Travolta, here's the basic context. And to be clear, it gets a little. complicated, but I want you to stay with. me because all of this will factor in. later on. and it will all make sense. maybe into what we're talking about. later on the new updates. Okay, so. originally two people named Bridget Cruz. and Kevin Fial, they are self-described. entrepreneurs. They were really big in. the world of Elvis Presley memorabilia. and they apparently started working with. Priscilla Presley, Elvis's ex-wife,

years ago, helping her manage her brand. and use her name, image, and likeness to. make money. That's what the lawyer says. But they also alleged that Priscilla was. making moves behind their backs to get. more money for herself and basically cut. the two of them out of future deals. So. they're suing her for all different. kinds of legal claims. But in these. filings, they also make a lot of very. serious, shocking allegations, including. regarding Elvis and Elvis and. Priscilla's daughter, Lisa Marie. Now, Elvis died in 1977, and as Lisa Marie.

grew up, she and her mother had a. reported tumultuous relationship, at. least according to these filings. According to this lawsuit, Elvis had. left his entire estate in a trust to. Lisa Marie, which she inherited when she. turned 25. There is an allegation that. Lisa Marie found out that Priscilla and. her financial manager were mismanaging. the money. That is where it asserts that. she made herself trustee and her son Ben. and daughter, actress Riley Kio, as the. ones who would inherit. From there, the. lawsuit claimed that when Priscilla.

became aware that Lisa Marie was getting. ready to remove her as sole trustee of. Lisa's irrevocable life insurance trust, something really bad happens. So, reading from the original complaint, it. says, quote, "Lisa suffered cardiac. arrest on Thursday, January 12th, and. she was rushed to West Hills Hospital. Priscilla, who knew that Lisa was in the. process of taking steps to remove her as. the sole trustee, saw an opportunity to. regain control. Priscilla rushed to West. Hills Hospital and despite Lisa's clear.

directive to prolong her life, Priscilla. pulled the plug within hours of Lisa. being admitted and before her. granddaughter Riley was able to get to. the hospital. There's also the. allegation that Priscilla said to the. effect of, "I'm the queen. I'm in charge. of Graceland." Cruz and Fial also make. the allegation that Priscilla not only. allegedly defraed Elvis during their. divorce, but seemingly drove him to his. death. Why? In an amended complaint, it. says, regarding a fight over money, quote, despite enriching herself and.

extorting millions of dollars from. Elvis, she then placed a lean on. Graceand, adding pressure to Elvis less. than 4 months before he died on August. 16th, 1977 from a heart attack and drug. complications. Priscilla exerted undue. pressure on Elvis, pushing him to his. death. Now, why is all this relevant to. Cruz and Fial? Well, one of the big. allegations here is they say Priscilla. didn't have the right to use the Presley. name because she sold those rights at. one point in time. And Priscilla's.

representations or alleged. misrepresentations that were made to. Cruz and FiO, those were just to get. them to invest money to help her. financially because they believed her. They spent a lot of money and time. helping her grow her brand. But if they. had known the truth about what was going. on, they wouldn't have done that. Now. she owes them. She has to pay up. There's other allegations, but you get. the overall gist. Okay. Now, before we. go into the latest update, again. revolving around Riley Kio and John. Travolta, you also have to understand.

that separately there is another lawsuit. against Priscilla's son Navaron Garcia. So, Cruz and ViO also sued him. The. original complaint said, "After. Priscilla Presley approached Planiff's. Cruz and Fialo to invest in her to save. her from financial ruin, Pliff's Cruz. and Fialo created various entities to be. used to grow Presley's brand. Planiff's. Cruz and Falco invested seven figures. into this endeavor for Presley's. benefit, handling numerous tasks for. Presley, including by resolving various. threats of litigation, resolving pending.

litigation, and negotiating various. deals for Presley, which defendant. Garcia was well aware of. Additionally, plaintiffs were tasked with taking care. of numerous issues for defendant Garcia. Specifically, plaintiffs spent countless. hours negotiating a settlement for. defendant Garcia, where he was. ultimately paid a sevenf figureure. amount from the estate of his late. halfsister, Lisa Marie Presley. Further, Pliff spent extensive hours overseeing. various business issues for Defendant. Garcia's ban, Them Guns. To date, even. though defendant Garcia was enriched by.

plaintiff's services, defendant Garcia. has failed to compensate plaintiffs for. the value of their services. Further on. information and belief, defendant Garcia. convinced Presley to cut off. communications with plaintiffs cruisal. and has consistently interfered with the. businesses created to exploit Presley's. name, image, and likeness. Okay. Now, there is an amended complaint against. Navon Garcia that has been filed, and. that is what we need to talk about. I'm. going to lay some of this out for you,

and then we'll talk about it. Quote, "Defendant Navaron Garcia, defendant or. Navaron, Priscilla Presley's only son, always wanted to be a star and resented. his halfsister, Lisa Marie Presley's. fame, even despising Elvis. In fact, Priscilla always told him he would be a. star, even forming a production company, Navaron Productions, Inc., for him." the. same year he was born. For years, Priscilla lived off of her daughter, Lisa Marie, funneling money from her. trust and using it to fund Navaron's. lifestyle and drug addiction. So, you.

get the sense of where we're going here. And from there, it goes into what was. said in the original complaint that. Priscilla tasked Falco and Cruz with. building up Navaron's career. They. claimed that Navaron wanted them to fire. his manager, get him a new publicist, get him press coverage. And then there. is this very disturbing part of the. complaint. After Lisa Marie's son, Benjamin Kio, died in July 2020, Priscilla promised Navaron that he would. be the king since he was now the only. male singer in the family. In reality,

Priscilla's love for Navon was and. always has been incestuous. Wow. So, from there, what does it say? The complaint alleges that Navon. demanded Cruz and Fialo get his. manuscript published. Cruz and Fialo. claimed they did a lot for him. They. handled his bills. They troubleshooted. his legal and PR issues. They handled. social media issues. They worked on his. booking and travel. And essentially, they were on call 247. And critically, they claim for all of this, they weren't. paid. I mean, they even allege that they. had to handle his divorce and that he.

demanded they pay $30,000 to his. soon-to-be ex-wife. They claim they had. to spend hundreds of hours catering to. Navaron Garcia. And they also claim that. Naverone made their lives very. difficult, that he would go on tie raids. and trash Elvis and his fans, that they. had to do damage control. They refer to. alleged social media posts where Navaron. called Lisa Marie, his sister, a snake. in the grass and master of betrayal, saying that she's a backstabber, that. her own mother doesn't like her. And the.

complaint includes these alleged posts. as well. From there, they claimed that. Naverone continued to tarnish the. Presley brand, that they couldn't get. him to stop, that he blamed Lisa Marie's. son's death on her, that Lisa Marie was. a lesbian, that he was out of control, that he was on drugs. These are all the. allegations. They say that he was. financially destitute. And they also. make this interesting claim, this. interesting allegation that Naverone. would essentially swindle old women. online to give him money. And then they. claim that when Lisa Marie, again, his.

halfsister, was rushed to the hospital, like I mentioned before, he ended up. texting Cruz and they include this. apparent exchange in the complaint as. well. So, when Cruz asks him if he's. going to the hospital, he seemingly. refuses and apparently writes, quote, "Not going to pretend I care about her. all of a sudden." Okay, this is where we. get into John Travolta. So Cruz and. Fialo claimed that Priscilla had filed a. legal action against her granddaughter. Riley Kio over control of Lisa's estate.

and that Naveron demanded Cruz and Fialo. negotiate a multi-million dollar. settlement on his behalf. While all this. is going on, I am just going to read you. this next part verbatim, okay, from the. amended complaint. Quote, "Immediately. after Lisa Marie's death, the entire. Presley family clamored for control of. the estate and for payouts using Pliffs. Cruz and Fialo as both negotiators and. mediators. Michael Lockwood, Lisa. Marie's ex-husband and the father of. Harper and Finley Lockwood, approached. Plainif Cruz, telling her that John.

Travolta's wife, Kelly Preston, had been. unable to bear her own children. And. Travolta and Presley previously used. Lisa Marie's eggs to get pregnant. Lockwood claimed that he was eating dog. food and that he and Lisa's twin. daughters, Harper and Finley, were. financially destitute. Lockwood came to. Pliff Cruz's hotel, providing her with. various files that he called music in. text messages so that no one else knew. about the discussions. Pliff's Cruz and. FiO tried to manage the constant chaos.

thrown at them by each of the Presley. family members who were fighting over. the respective claims against Lisa. Marie's estate. Lockwood was incessant. and claimed that Travolta needed to help. salvage his career amid claims of sexual. assault against other men which. threatened his career as a leading man. and that Travolta and Preston approached. the Presley family in or around 2010. while in Hawaii. Lockwood claimed that. Travolta said he no longer wanted to use. Lisa Marie's eggs because they did not. want quote eggs with heroin on them. and.

they orchestrated a deal where Riley Kio. gave her eggs to Travolta so that Kelly. could give birth to their son Ben. Travolta. Lockwood gave Cruz a picture. of Riley with her son Ben Travolta at. John Travolta's house in Maine. Lockwood. said Riley was given an old Jaguar and. paid between $10,000 and $20,000 for the. deal. Plaintiffs were heartbroken by the. family chaos and tried to keep the. family together. Okay, in other words, just so we can process that for a. second, the claim is the allegation is.

that John Travolta and Kelly Preston's. youngest child is Riley Kio's biological. son. Okay, that's just again a lot to. process and I'll get into this with a a. legal expert in a minute. But Cruz and. Fialo also claim this is an allegation. that Lockwood had said that this was. signed off by the Church of Scientology. that they were overseeing all of this. and they claimed that Lockwood wanted. them to use this information to. basically negotiate a settlement for him.

and his daughter that he wanted to pay. off. At the same time, they claimed that. Naverone threw a tantrum that he didn't. want anyone finding out about Riley and. Travolta's son since he wanted to be the. only musician in the family and the. quote king. So, all of this is going on. Then Cruz and Fial claimed that they. asked Navon give his mom Priscilla just. a little time to work all this out after. Lisa Marie's death and they claimed that. he refused and that is when they. alleged, this is another bizarre detail.

that Naverone took Bam Margera, you know. from the Jackass show, took him to. Priscilla's house and they claimed that. Marggera posted on social media that. Navaron gave him Elvis's jewelry and. bathrobe. And this forced them, Cruz and. Falco, to do a lot of PR damage control. They then claimed that Naverone demanded. they find out why Priscilla's business. manager didn't set up a savings account. for him. And then he allegedly wanted to. know how much he would inherit once. Priscilla died. And that he kept on.

demanding that Cruz and Fiala. orchestrate a multi-million dollar. settlement for him from Lisa Marie's. estate. And they claim, look, after. everything they did for him, they were. able to get him a $2.7 million. settlement. And even after that, they. claim Navon still didn't pay them. They. also alleged that Naone was very. difficult, that he yelled at the. publicists that they got him, that they. had to manage him given his drug use, that he constantly bered them, that he. created a toxic work environment, and. they include all of these apparent text.

messages to corroborate that point. And. finally, they claimed that Naverone lied. about them, including this allegation. that they took money away and quote, "Wrongfully pushed his mother, Priscilla, to break all of her. agreements with plaintiffs, maliciously. interrupting all of their business deals. and efforts to grow and exploit. Priscilla's name, image, and likeness, causing plaintiffs significant financial. and reputational harm." What a journey. we all just went on with this. All. right, before we even get into the. causes of action, what the legal claims. are here, let me break all this down,

what we've just heard with Jeremy Evans, sports, entertainment, and media. attorney. Uh Jeremy, thanks for taking. the time. Look, I I will say, you know, these are very, very. shocking allegations to say the least. Um what was your reaction to reading. this uh in this amended complaint? And. you have to imagine, and we'll talk. about the attorney's response in imagine. in a minute, you got to imagine they. have evidence to back this up. I mean, they include uh certain messages um and.

certain documentation and social media. posts, but to make claims like this, you. you got to be careful. Yeah. No, I agree. I mean, this kind of. reminds me of the Michael Jackson. situation and some of the other. celebrities with, you know, Johnny Depp. and where you have estates or um, you. know, money that's obviously being paid. to managers and other legal folks. But. it just sounds like the whole thing is. kind of a mess. But I agree with you. There's so much to be made of what's.

going on. But I will say that this. happens a lot in the entertainment space. where basically a manager is claimed to. have done something and then the other. side is saying that it didn't happen. So. very very um very very very interesting. What is interesting about it is many. times as I I was reading I was I had to. circle back to why are they making these. claims? Why are Cruz and FiO making. these claims? Like how does this harm. them? Is this to provide more context. about the services that they employed, the work that they were doing, the. family dynamic? what they were involved.

in, the alleged trauma uh that they were. going through, the work environment they. were going through, or is in a way is. this, hey, do you want to take this to. trial? Do you want to take this to. court? Do you want more of this to be. exposed? Is this a way to force a. settlement? I mean, these are their. allegations. You have the other side who. say this is none of this is true, right? But those were two things I was thinking. about. It was like, how does this relate. back to them? Is a trial even gonna have. all this or is it a way this is a. sampling of what a trial could look.

like? You might want to settle this, >> right? No, that's that's well said and I. agree with you. I think that in any of. these situations, I think a lot of this. is posturing as to who, you know, who. can prove what uh what facts are out. there and maybe it forces the other side. to uh to make a decision as to settle. before trial because you're right, these. trials could be very embarrassing uh and. could bring up a lot of different uh you. know, factual things that again could uh.

could harm the estate. So, it's it's. very interesting and I I did notice too. that the manager of the estate uh of the. property of Graceand uh you know did. give an interview and was talking about. you know none of this was true and there. was no hidden you know um. uh items that were very expensive at the. house. But it's again I agree with you. I think a lot of this is just posturing. uh getting the facts out there. >> Well, now I say it and now I'm playing. devil's advocate. I'm saying to myself,

maybe they have to take it to trial to. dispel this. So, I want your your. reaction to this. This is some of the. reaction. So, uh Priscilla Presley's. attorneys, Marty Singer, Wayne Harmon, they told TMZ after losing motion after. motion in this case and unsuccessfully. seeking to have Presley's council of. record, Marty Singer disqualified from. representing her in this matter. Rajie. Cruz, Kevin Fial, and their. co-conspirators have demonstrated that. there is no bar too low, no ethical line. that they are unwilling to cross in an. effort to cause further pain to. Priscilla Presley and her family. They.

added in a completely improper effort to. exert undue pressure on Presley to. retract her legitimate, truthful claims. Cruz and her co-conspirators have also. sued Presley's son, cousin, and. assistant. These recent outrageous. allegations have absolutely nothing to. do with the claims in this case. The. conduct of Cruz and Fialo and their new. lawyers. They are on their fourth set of. attorneys is shameful and it absolutely. will be addressed in court. Now, Jordan. Matthews of Holtz Matthews LLP, uh, who.

we've had on this program, represents. Cruz and Fialo. He gave us this. statement, gave law on crime this. statement. Breie Cruz and Kevin Fial are. heartbroken that they have been forced. to file their most recent amended. complaint. They have been accused of. horrific acts that are not supported by. any evidence whatsoever. These. accusations are especially painful given. the enormous amount of work they. performed to keep the Presley family. together during an extremely difficult. and divisive period of time. Their. efforts resolved all Presley family. disputes in the wake of Lisa Marie's. untimely passing. Every matter was.

settled. All parties were paid and. closure was achieved. In the midst of. this family dispute, they did everything. they could to protect Riley and the. twins from what Michael Lockwood and. Priscilla's son Navaron were trying to. do. It was only after this work was. completed that Miss Cruz and Mr. Fialco. were cast aside, not paid for their. work, and falsely accused of wrongdoing. without any proof whatsoever. This. semantic complaint is about revealing. the truth, correcting the record, and. providing evidence of the work that was. done in good faith to bring peace, resolution, and stability to the Presley.

family despite being exposed to constant. volatility. Miss Cruz and Mr. Fial. remain confident that the truth will. prevail and trust that the courts will. not favor one person over another simply. because of one party's celebrity status. To that end, we will vigorously pursue. justice for our clients and will not. tolerate any attempt to bully or defame. them. Maybe I'm wrong, Jeremy. Maybe. they do want to go to trial, both sides. No. And I and to your point, Jesse, I. think that anytime these parties get to. a point, especially when a celebrity is.

involved, if you can't prove a certain. point or can't get to a place where you. can come to an agreement, it seems that. and especially with these cases being so. high-profile, there's a tendency to push. it to trial. Obviously, in these cases, you'd like for them to settle before so. embarrassing things don't get out. But. to your point, uh clearly there's a long. history here going back to the original. uh 2016 amendment to the trust uh to. where it is today and and so I agree.

with you. I think maybe the these. parties do want to get it out and trying. to prove a point. >> Did you look at the exhibits in this, the text messages, the social media. posts that were attached to the end of. the complaint? Um because I wonder, did. those move the needle? Do you think it's. definitive proof of what Cruz and Fiat. are claiming? I think that it shows that there was a. conversation had. I don't know if it. necessarily proves the validity of sort. of what happened and how much money is. owed and and whether there was, you.

know, sort of any fraud going on. Um, I. think they're going to need to prove. more than that. I think at the end of. the day, what this is really comes down. to is, you know, how much are these. managers owed, uh, if anything? and you. know what involvement did Priscilla have. uh in and is is she capable of managing. the estate? I I think that's what this. really boils down to. I don't know if. the exhibits really prove all of that. Um you know, I think ultimately the uh. the arguments at trial and whatever else.

is presented is going to is going to. help with that, assuming it goes to. trial. >> Let me go through um and by the way, if. it does go to trial, let me just ask you. this. Is the judge going to allow. evidence of all of this? cuz this is the. most complicated case I've heard in. quite some time. Is the judge going to. streamline it, narrow it down in some. way about what can and can't be. discussed? >> Absolutely. And great point, Jesse, because I think that there's no way that. all the information could come in, we'd.

be talking about, you know, a year-long. trial. And as much as that might be. great for television, it might not be. great for the family and for all the. folks involved, not to mention the cost. I definitely think the judge is going to. limit this. There's probably going to be. several evidentiary hearings in terms of. what's going to be included, what's. going to be uh eliminated, what's going. to be streamlined. So, really good point. and and I agree with you that's. definitely going to happen before this. before this goes to trial. Let me go. through the causes of action here. So,

the first one, the first claim for. relief cause of action is common goods. and services rendered cruise and fi. against defendant Navaron. So. essentially, if I'm understanding. correctly, that Navaron, the claim is he. needs to pay them for the work that they. did, like negotiating a complicated. settlement for him, that they had to. spend all of this time overseeing his. business issues for his band, travel. accommodations, handle his divorce, and. they did all this, and he didn't pay. them. Your thoughts on that one?

You know, it's it's interesting. I think. I would go back to the point of the the. 2016 um estate plan document that. ultimately was settled. And I think what. has the potential to come out at this. trial if it or if this continues is. whether there was many mental incapacity. with regard to that agreement because. none of that stuff was tested as this. was all settled. So, it's going to be. interesting how that plays on whatever.

money was owed because I think the. estate's argument or Priscilla's. argument is that well that agreement may. not be valid. Uh and then secondly that. secondly to that uh there may have been. some incapacity issues cuz you know as. we all know she soon you know she soon. after passed away tragically. So I think. these things both play they play. together because I think any cause of. action towards how much money is owed. goes back to whether there was mental. incapacity, undue influence or anything.

else with regard to the the previous. settlement and by the way reasonable. value of the services. What is that? Is. that like how do you calculate something. like that? >> No, good point. I think a judge would it. probably they would bring in an expert. and the expert would say in this. industry there's you know this is how. much the hourly fees range from this is. how much somebody else got paid in a. similar situated you know circumstance. that's but it would be proved through an.

expert. Okay. And then you have this. second claim for relief. It's called. constructive discharge. So Cruz and. FiACO against all defendants. So this is. all about Navaron allegedly berating. them, exposing them to his tirades, alleged tyrades, volatile behavior that. he demanded all these things from them, threaten them, and then convince Presley. to sever ties with them, that this. working environment was so bad they had. to resign. Your thoughts on constructive. discharge, if there's something there?

And if I'm if I'm saying it the right. way, by the way, hopefully I I analyze. that the right way. >> No, you did. I I I think that, you know, again, this goes back to um. whether they were paid correctly and. whether they did a good job. I think. just in simple sort of layman's terms. And to me, I just don't know if enough. has been presented so far to show that. they weren't paid enough or that somehow. they're owed this. I think it was $10. million or whatever the number is. >> It just it seems a little I don't want.

to say far-fetched, but again, I'd want. to see more. I just don't know why a. manager or even a lawyer would be making. or charging that much money in this. case. Now, the end of the day, if they. had a contract in play that said we're. owed this much money, then that would go. to that contract. But it sounds like a. lot of what's happening is sort of this. person said this, this person said this, and this is what our expectation. And. that's a lot harder to prove uh at trial. than say here's the four corners of a.

contract, right? And you so it's that. that's the difficult part. >> Yeah. Hey, the number one thing they. tell you in law school is get it in. writing. Get it in [laughter] writing. You don't want an oral contract. I I. mean this was interesting too. It's it. is a lot about the money. The third. claim is uh the California waiting time. penalties that under California law an. employer has to pay an employee all. wages that ow to that person no later. than 72 hours after they're terminated. Claim here didn't happen. They sustain.

damages, loss of earnings, and under the. law, they're entitled to penalties, which I don't know how much those could. be, but I don't know. It kind of goes. into your other point, Jeremy, about. what are they entitled to? And this is. more specific about that they weren't. paid under a specific amount of time, and maybe they can seek penalties that. could be pretty bad. I don't know. see that that's a fascinating point. because that would also assume that. these managers were employees versus. independent contractors.

So, and I think that's an that's an. important distinction, too. And. generally, if you're a manager, you're probably not going to be. employed. you're you're going to be an. independent contractor unless they gave. up all of their clients and all their. other employment and decided just to. work for uh this particular company or. this particular estate or person. So, I. think that's important too. What was. their understanding? And according to. the law, were they independent. contractors or were they a uh employee?

Because you're right, if they're an. employee, then generally you do. everything that's undisputed at the time. of termination. So uh whereas an. independent contractor it just becomes. how much is owed and is there interest. on the money that's owed. >> There's another claim and this is direct. this is kind of what we saw in the. original complaint that Navaron is. responsible for or or contributed to. breaking up the relationship that Cruz. and Fiago had with Priscilla. So it's a. fourth claim intentional interference. with contractual relations. Again, Nav.

basically allegedly interfered with the. contracts that Priscilla had with Cruz. and FACO, the companies that were used. to exploit her name, image, or likeness, and that they are entitled to punitive. damages, exemplary damages. Thoughts on. that one, Jeremy? >> Yeah, that's a that's an interesting. one. And typically. um lawyers who who practice in the space. would say uh a very difficult claim to. prove because when you're talking about.

a breach of contract and you and sort of. a person pushing towards breaking up a. relationship. I think the other piece to this is that. let's say for example you and I were uh. trying to negotiate a contract together. and then um a lawyer came along that. that was representing you and decided to. give you advice as to you know you. shouldn't get into this deal. I I think. that in so far as Priscilla or whoever.

was involved was getting advice as to. how to break up this deal because it was. not good for them, probably going to be. pretty difficult to prove that claim. >> But if this was somebody that came along. that benefited from this and uh was. looking to uh more than just give good. advice, I think, you know, potentially. could prove that claim. But again, very. very difficult to prove. >> And this one's kind of similar based on. your analysis. I I imagine you would say. this is also a bit speculative. Intentional interference with.

prospective economic relations. Quote, plaintiffs and Presley were in an. economic relationship that probably. would have resulted in an economic. benefit to plaintiffs. Defendant Navaron. knew of Pliff's relationship with. Presley. Defendant Navaron convinced. Presley to cut off ties with plaintiffs. Cruz and Falco, resulting in Presley. breaching her obligations under the. Presley agreements by convincing Presley. to cut ties with plaintiffs Cruz and. Falco. defendants intended to disrupt. plaintiff's relationship with Presley or. knew that disruption was certain or. substantially certain to occur. Plainif's relationship with Presley was.

harmed and defendant Navaron's conduct. was a substantial factor in causing. plaintiff's harm. So, this is like a. little bit more speculative speculative, right? Like this probably would have. resulted in a really big economic. benefit, but we're not quite spelling it. out. Can you tell me how this one works? Yeah, this is even I mean I think the. law in itself kind of in the title of it. kind of it it it sort of explains that. um because it's prospective it's going. to be even harder to prove meaning that.

you're going to have to show a contract. or some sort of oral agreement something. that was just yet to be signed or yet to. be acted out or it was acted out in an. oral context but ultimately was ended. But I think the caveat to all of this. and what a jury would probably empathize. with is the fact that this is a mother. dealing with family matters, right? So. it's not necessarily the argument can be. made that well, it's not that they broke. up this deal for any other reason and. that they were protecting the family or. protecting their reputation or whatever.

it might be. So again, very speculative, but if they have a contract in play and. it shows that it was cancelled, maybe. there's a potential for recovery. But. even in an unrelated case, if you're. trying to look for prospective damages, again, very hard to prove. And often. judges uh and juries won't give those. types of uh damages. Okay. All right. Well, this is where we stand right now. Um let's see what happens next. Uh. Jeremy Evans, thank you so much for. taking the time. I really appreciate. You were great.

>> My pleasure. Thanks, Jesse. Always fun. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should. get your podcasts. You can [music]. follow me on X or Instagram. I'm Jesse. Weber. I'll speak to you next time.