California Judge Dismisses Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Tommy Lee with Option to Amend
A sexual assault lawsuit against Mötley Crüe drummer Tommy Lee was dismissed by a California judge on Monday, though the door remains open for the plaintiff, identified only as Jane Doe, to file an amended complaint. The lawsuit, which alleges an incident from 2003 involving Lee in a helicopter, was challenged under the state’s Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act, with the court requiring more definitive evidence of a concerted effort to conceal the alleged assault.
Jane Doe’s initial complaint, filed last December, came under a law that includes a provision allowing a one-year “lookback window” for claims that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. This window closed on December 31, 2023. The complaint asserts that Lee, known for his public persona of “salacious and hedonistic conduct,” sexually assaulted her during a helicopter flight orchestrated by pilot David Martz.
The plaintiff described a distressing scene where she was allegedly lured under the pretense of a sightseeing trip, only to be assaulted by Lee in the presence of the pilot, who reportedly did nothing to intervene. The alleged assault included forcible kissing, groping, and other non-consensual acts, leading to significant emotional distress for the plaintiff, who did not report the incident at the time due to fears of disbelief and the purportedly isolated nature of the event.
The one-year lookback window was designed to offer victims of sexual assault an opportunity to seek justice for crimes that might have occurred long ago but were only recently discovered or recognized due to various circumstances, including the realization of a cover-up. This window is especially significant in cases where the usual statute of limitations would prevent the filing of a lawsuit due to the time elapsed since the alleged incident.
The Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act includes a one-year lookback window that temporarily suspends the statute of limitations for filing sexual assault claims. This window allows victims to file lawsuits for incidents that may have occurred in the distant past but were only recently discovered or recognized due to the alleged cover-up.
To file a claim under this act, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a "legal entity" engaged in efforts to hide evidence of the assault. This is a unique requirement that differentiates it from other sexual assault legislation, focusing specifically on the accountability of organizations or entities that may have facilitated or obscured the wrongdoing.
A unique aspect of the Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act is its requirement that the cover-up involves a "legal entity," such as a corporation or organization. This stipulation is intended to address situations where businesses or institutions may have protected perpetrators of abuse, thus exacerbating the victim's difficulty in seeking early recourse.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Holly J. Fujie ruled that the plaintiff had not sufficiently demonstrated that a legal entity was involved in concealing the alleged assault, a necessary element under the law used to file the claim. The judge noted the plaintiff’s failure to assert facts supporting the coverup requirement and raised questions about the operational status of Mayhem Touring Inc., which Lee claimed was suspended at the time of the incident.
While dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Fujie granted Jane Doe 20 days to submit an amended complaint that could potentially revive the case. This amendment would need to include new facts indicating a concerted effort to conceal evidence, specifically involving a legal entity. The judge’s decision to allow for an amendment underscores the court’s usual practice of providing plaintiffs with an opportunity to address and correct deficiencies in their pleadings.
Tommy Lee’s attorney, A. Sasha Frid, applauded the court's decision, reiterating Lee’s denial of the allegations and expressing confidence in the lack of a valid claim against him. Frid highlighted the plaintiff’s recognition of Lee’s established public image, arguing that this contradicted the possibility of a coverup.
