Having won a partial dismissal of a woman's lawsuit on free-speech grounds, Steven Tyler is seeking more than $150,000 in attorneys' fees from the plaintiff, who alleges the Aerosmith frontman had an illicit relationship with her when she was 16 years old and he was 25.
The motion filed Monday in Inglewood Superior Court follows a March 12 ruling by Judge Ronald Frank based on the state's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, which is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
The plaintiff maintains her life was "shattered" when Tyler, now 76, released memoirs characterizing his alleged abuses of her as "a romantic, loving relationship" without her knowledge or consent in order to obtain fame and financial benefit for himself and his managers, agents and publishers.
Want to get caught up on what's happening in SoCal every weekday afternoon? Click to follow The L.A. Local wherever you get podcasts.
Frank's ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion struck only the woman's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim insofar as it is based on statements made in Tyler's published memoirs. In their court papers, Tyler's attorneys called that part of the plaintiff's emotional distress claim "baseless."
Tyler is seeking $155,425 in attorneys' fees and a hearing is scheduled for June 14.
The anti-SLAPP motion did not seek to strike the plaintiff's first emotional distress allegations, which are based on alleged acts of childhood sexual assault, nor did it target her other causes of action.
Tyler's lawyers argued in their anti-SLAPP motion that the statements in their client's memoirs are matters of public interest.
"In fact, plaintiff alleges that there was such widespread public interest in Tyler's statements that their public dissemination purportedly imposed involuntary infamy upon plaintiff," Tyler's lawyers stated. "It is axiomatic that statements about celebrities -- particularly regarding tabloid issues like interpersonal relationships are protected activity under the anti- SLAPP statute."
Tyler's memoir accounts, including those dealing with his relationship with the plaintiff, thus concern a matter of public interest and qualify as protected activity, according to the musician's attorneys' court papers, which also state that Tyler used the pseudonym "Diana Hall" or simply "Diana" when referring to the plaintiff.
In her suit filed in December 2022, Tyler's accuser alleges that he convinced the plaintiff's mother to grant him guardianship over her when she was 16 years old, allowing her to live with him and engage in a sexual relationship. She alleges they were together for about three years beginning in 1973.
The plaintiff became pregnant in 1975, causing Tyler to be simultaneously both the father of the plaintiff's unborn child and her legal guardian, according to the suit, which further states that the Catholic plaintiff later relented under Tyler's pressure and had an abortion.
The plaintiff subsequently "made a conscious decision to leave and escape the music and drug-addled world seeking to be free from the sexualized culture created by Tyler and the industry," according to her suit, which additionally states that she went on to have a family and become active in her faith.
Follow KNX News 97.1 FM
Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | TikTok