Garth Brooks has been locked in a legal battle with a former employee known publicly as Jane Roe. He filed a lawsuit against her in Mississippi federal court accusing her of slander, defamation, and blackmail. He claimed that the former employee threatened to publicly accuse him of sexual assault and rape if he didn’t pay her a large sum of money. Days after the country star filed his lawsuit, Roe filed suit against him in California superior court accusing him of several counts of sexual misconduct. More recently, Brooks won a small victory in the ongoing legal war.
Videos by American Songwriter
According to USA Today, Brooks’ lawyers filed a motion on November 1 to move Roe’s sexual assault lawsuit from the California state court to federal court. On Friday (November 8) the court was assigned a federal judge. Later that day, his legal team asked U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald to dismiss Roe’s case and force her to refile in Mississippi federal court. Failing that, they asked the judge to pause the California suit until Brooks’ suit in Mississippi is finished. They claim that the proposed move is in the interest of efficiency.
“If Brooks succeeds in the Mississippi action by proving that Roe’s allegations of assault are false, Roe will not prevail in this action because it requires her to prove that the exact same allegations are true,” Brooks’ legal team explained. “The parties should not be required to conduct overlapping discovery [in California] and in the Mississippi action simultaneously. And this court should not be thrust into a race with the Southern District of Mississippi to decide the critical factual issues that are dispositive of both actions,” they added.
Jane Roe’s Team Dispute’s Garth Brooks’ Team’s Claim
Garth Brooks’ legal team says the move is in the interest of efficiency. However, Jane Roe’s legal team believes otherwise. Instead, they allege that the motion was an intimidation tactic. “This is just more of the same bullying and intimidation Garth Brooks has used from the moment our client intended to hold him accountable,” said Roe’s attorney. “We look forward to getting before a jury and reaching the merits of this case,” they added.
Kate Mangels, a partner at the Los Angeles law firm Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir spoke to USA Today about the case. She highlighted some other reasons why Brooks’ team would want to move Roe’s case to federal court.
With both cases in federal court, they are “both governed by the federal rules, so there’s more consistency between those cases,” Mangels explained. However, that is only the beginning. She also pointed out that federal court moves faster and judges are more likely to dismiss cases. Additionally, the jury comes from a wider geographic area. As a result, Mangels said, “You might get a more rural jury pool, which potentially Garth Brooks’ lawyers think would be kinder to him.”
It is also harder to get a verdict in a federal court. California state court requires that three-fourths of the jury agree to reach a verdict. Federal court, on the other hand, requires a unanimous decision from the jury.
Roe could petition the court to move her case back to the state level. However, it would be an uphill battle for her legal team.
Featured Image by Jason Kempin/Getty Images
Leave a Reply
Only members can comment. Become a member. Already a member? Log in.