This column from simply six readers discovered it MC Guimay faces legal battle towards a boy who used to look at his show, at the Hotel Estancia Bonanza in São Paulo. That’s as a result of, in response to the plaintiff, Diego, a man who was presupposed to be the singer’s private safety might have attacked him when he was making an attempt to strategy the funk singer’s dressing room to take a image. Lexa’s husband was sentenced to pay R$ 10,000 as compensation for ethical damages., however appealed the sentence. The boy had additionally sued the lodge.
The controversy started on 17 November 2014, when the creator of the motion attended an occasion organized by MC Guaime within the premises of the Hotel Bonanza. According to case recordsdata that this column had entry to, nearing the top of the efficiency, Diego Funk would go to the dressing room to take images with the performer, who would have already consented to the act. However, in response to him, the artist’s safety guards barred him from getting into when he reached the spot.
Also in response to Diego, when explaining that Lexa’s husband had already agreed to the registration, he was stunned when he was struck within the face. The punch triggered some accidents to the nostril space and the boy required three surgical stitches on the spot, in response to a police report.
The safety guard accountable for the aggression, in response to Diego, wore a shirt with Guim’s title on it, which attested to him that the skilled was personal to the singer and to not the lodge., In view of the accidents and accidents attributable to the aggression, a lawsuit was filed demanding compensation for ethical harm within the quantity of 40 minimal wages.
The lodge, in its protection, reported not having accountability, because the safety guard who attacked Diego was not a part of its workers, solely employed for the incident. Guimé, in flip, strongly denied that the person was his worker. Funk Singer additionally said that damages haven’t been confirmed.
The sentence acknowledged the motion as partially legitimate. This is as a result of, in response to the court docket, it was deemed that it will be undisputed that the safety agent accountable for the aggression was the truth is an worker of MC Guimé. What remained clear was that there have been two safety teams: one from the artist and a third occasion. It would even have been clear that the aggression was unwarranted and sudden.
In view of this, Lexa’s husband was ordered to pay R$ 10,000 for ethical damages to the author. The motion concerning the lodge the place the occasion occurred was dismissed.
Disagreeing with the sentence, on November 10, 2022, MC Guimé filed his attraction to the court docket. Now, on a preliminary foundation, the singer claimed that The motion should be reversed as a result of the correct has decided (lack of proper resulting from passage of time), This is as a result of, as per regulation, the time restrict for submitting an motion can be three) years from the date of info. The truth occurred on 11/17/2014, due to this fact, the order can be on 11/17/2017. The motion, in flip, was filed solely on 11/17/2018. This approach, will probably be clear to the funk artist that the method is over.
Still on attraction, Guimé claimed to have suffered a nice injustice, condemned to imagine the results of an act that resulted from the particular fault of a third occasion. The artist additionally identified that his location on the defendant’s facet of the motion is illegitimate, since he has no reference to what occurred, for the reason that aggression was dedicated by one other one who is additionally not within the course of.
Furthermore, in response to Guimé, there wouldn’t be sufficient proof that Diego was killed. Similarly, there can be no proof that the individual accountable for the alleged coup was the truth is his safety, as there was no felony illustration or testimony from witnesses to the alleged incident.
On December 8, 2022, it was Diego’s flip to current his response to Guimé’s attraction, i.e. his rebuttal to the attraction, Right from the outset, the plaintiff mentioned that the judgment was clear in stating that the matter in query is a consumerist affair, which invokes the Consumer Protection Code. That is, within the case of client relations, the limitation interval is not three years, however 5 years. As a outcome, the matter doesn’t finish.
Furthermore, for Diego, it will have already been confirmed that the safety guard was from MC Guaime’s personal staff, even sporting a shirt along with his title on it. Singer might not have even invested in his attraction, whereas he merely reiterated materials that was already inside his protection.
The plaintiff additionally argued towards the compensation quantity. Although convicted, MC Guime should pay an quantity which in response to Diego is not enough to forestall a recurrence of the harm. That is, in his opinion the compensation quantity of R$ 10,000 can be too small.
The reply to the artist’s attraction was duly filed and obtained, asking for upkeep of the sentence. Now it stays to attend to know the following improvement of the case. In flip, it could take a while for MC Guimay to obtain information concerning the course of, since this Monday (16), he entered BBB 23, and will resist three months in jail,