Sexual assault lawsuit against Tommy Lee dismissed

A judge has given a woman 20 days to file an amended lawsuit against Tommy Lee over an alleged sexual assault in a helicopter.

It came after a woman identified only as Jane Doe claimed in a lawsuit last December that the Mötley Crüe drummer attacked her in 2003 after luring her to his private helicopter “under false pretenses.”

In the filing, she claimed that she took a 40-minute trip from San Diego to Van Nuys with Lee’s personal helicopter pilot, David Martz, before Lee joined them in landing.

She further alleged that the two men “consumed several alcoholic drinks, smoked marijuana and snorted cocaine” before Lee “then sexually abused her by forcibly groping her, kissing her, penetrating her with his fingers and attempting to force her.” .” to perform oral copulation.”

Doe said she suffered severe emotional, physical and psychological distress as a result of the alleged assault and that she did not report it because she believed it was an isolated incident and that police would not take her seriously.

Yesterday (May 6), Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Holly J. Fujie sided with Lee after the drummer’s attorney argued that the claims under the Jane Doe plaintiff’s law when their original lawsuit was filed, would not be eligible for retrial, they say Rolling Stone.

The law, known as the Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act, requires plaintiffs to prove that some type of “legal entity” made a cooperative effort to conceal evidence of their alleged sexual assault.

Lee’s attorney, A. Sasha Frid, argued that Jane Doe wrote in her initial complaint that Lee was already famous for his “lewd and hedonistic behavior” at the time of the alleged helicopter attack. “That would eliminate any possibility of a cover-up. “It cannot be glossed over when the plaintiff claims that this allegedly ‘lewd’ behavior was known to everyone,” Frid argued.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Holly J. Fujie temporarily dismissed all four counts in the lawsuit — sexual assault, gender-based violence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence — pending the filing of a new complaint.

The judge also said the plaintiff “failed to allege facts that would support the ‘cover-up’ requirement.”

The plaintiff is demanding unspecified damages.