The order was granted Wednesday after She’s Alive, the entity created to manage and protect Parton’s professional property and business interests, filed a complaint against Seaver and his private security company, Squadron Augmented Protection Services.
Court filings show that the estate accused Seaver of making increasingly threatening statements, including threats to damage Parton’s legacy and business empire.
Under the temporary order, Seaver and Squadron Augmented Protection Services are prohibited from communicating with or coming within 1,000 feet, or 305 meters, of employees, attorneys and business partners associated with She’s Alive.
The order also bars them from interfering with the estate’s business relationships.
A hearing is scheduled for October 7, when the court is expected to examine the dispute further.
The legal action marks an unusual development in the management of Parton’s estate following her death. Her professional affairs had been managed for years, but the disagreement has now moved into the court system.
According to the estate’s filing, Seaver’s alleged conduct resulted in the termination of his company’s relationship with She’s Alive. The estate said the circumstances made it untenable to continue working with the company.
Court documents include messages and emails that the estate says Seaver sent over several weeks. The filing states that some of the communications began shortly before Parton’s death and continued afterward.
The documents also detail Seaver’s discussion of his increased public profile following the singer’s death.
Seaver had previously been involved in security arrangements for Parton. The estate’s filing says his company was terminated last week.
The temporary restraining order does not settle the dispute. Instead, it establishes restrictions as the case moves toward the October 7 hearing.
Further proceedings could shed more light on the disagreement and how Parton’s business interests are being managed by her estate.
For now, the October 7 hearing is the next significant date in the case.
The dispute comes as Parton’s professional and personal legacy enters a new phase following her death, while the organizations overseeing her business affairs continue managing her extensive interests.
Original article


Comments