Having previously won a partial dismissal of a woman’s lawsuit on free-speech grounds, Steven Tyler now wants a judge to dismiss the rest of the case in which the plaintiff alleges the Aerosmith frontman had an illicit relationship with her when she was 16 years old and he was 25.
In court papers filed Wednesday with Inglewood Superior Court Judge Tamara Hall, the 77-year-old musician’s attorneys maintain that most of the encounters that form the basis of the woman’s sexual assault and battery complaint occurred in Massachusetts, where the age of consent is 16 years old, compared to 18 in California.
Only one of the accuser’s claims have a California connection while others outside of Massachusetts involve alleged sexual interactions between Tyler and the plaintiff in Oregon and Washington, according to the singer’s attorney’s court papers, which further state that the woman’s claims would be time-barred in Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington.
Tyler’s lawyers also say in their court papers that with her lawsuit, the woman has made an about-face assessment of the relationship.
“For years, plaintiff expressed no animus towards Tyler for their relationship. In 1975, plaintiff told Tyler she would never do anything to harm him, did not care about his money and would never sue him,” Tyler’s lawyers state in their court papers.
Now, however, the woman contends her relationship with Tyler caused severe emotional distress and she further maintains she was assaulted, harassed, abused and molested, the performer’s lawyers further state in their pleadings.
The woman traveled to several Aerosmith shows, none of which were in California, to see Tyler before they moved into an apartment together in Boston in the spring of 1974, Tyler’s lawyers further state in their court papers.
By June 1975, the plaintiff and Tyler were engaged to be married and expecting a child, shortly after the plaintiff turned 18, she suffered smoke inhalation in an October 1975 apartment fire and she had an abortion, the Tyler lawyers further state in their court papers.
Tyler’s attorneys ask that if the judge decides against dismissing all of what’s left of the woman’s case, he at least narrow the claim to the one California-based allegation and eliminated her intentional infliction of emotional distress allegation. A hearing on Tyler’s motion is scheduled for Aug. 28.
The part of Tyler’s case previously dismissed by Judge Ronald Frank in an anti-SLAPP motion involved the woman’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim that pertained to statements made in Tyler’s published memoirs. The state’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law is intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
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 maintains that Tyler was the one who pressured her into having 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.