Jermaine Jackson has a major legal victory in his ongoing civil case. A California judge voided a $6.5 million default judgment against him. This ruling came due to an issue with how the lawsuit was served. The case remains active and will now proceed in court.
The latest legal development in Jermaine Jackson’s civil case
According to the court documents obtained by TMZ, the judge ruled that there was no legal basis to keep the default judgment in place. The court found that the plaintiff failed to use Jermaine Jackson’s legal name when attempting to serve him. The judge raised concerns regarding where the legal notice was published.
The plaintiff, Rita Butler Barrett, filed the lawsuit in December 2023. She accused Jermaine Jackson of sexually assaulting her in 1988 in Encino, California. Jackson has denied the allegations against him.
Court documents show that Barrett and her attorney attempted to locate Jackson on numerous occasions. They published legal notices in the Los Angeles Times between August and September 2025. After Jackson did not respond, Barret requested and received a default judgment against Jackson for $6.5 million in May 2026.
Jackson later challenged the judgment, arguing that the lawsuit did not use his legal name. Jackson changed his name from Jermaine Jackson to Jermaine LaJuane Jacksun in 2013. He also claimed that he lived overseas while the notice appeared in Los Angeles.
The judge agreed with the claims. The ruling determined that the lawsuit used the wrong legal name for Jermaine Jackson. Moreover, it noted that publishing notices in Los Angeles was not correct as Jackson was living abroad. Based on those procedural issues, the court voided the default judgment.
This ruling did not deal with the major allegations made in the lawsuit. Instead, it focused solely on whether Jackson had been properly served with legal notice. The judge has given Jackson 10 days to make a response to the complaint. The Jeramine rape case will continue to proceed in the civil court.
TELL US – WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE COURT’S RULING TO VOID THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT?
