The former girlfriend of influencer Andrew Tate wants to amend her lawsuit in which she alleges the former professional kickboxer sexually abused her at the Beverly Hills Hotel, this time to add claims that Tate filed a false police report against her which kept her in Dubai for weeks this fall.
Brianna Stern, a 29-year-old model who dated Tate for nearly a year, filed her original civil lawsuit against Tate for sexual assault and battery in Santa Monica Superior Court on March 27. Tate lives in Romania and Dubai and holds dual U.S. and United Kingdom citizenships.
In court papers filed Wednesday with Judge Mark Epstein in advance of a Jan. 6 hearing, Stern’s attorneys state that the amended complaint would add a second claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, plus new allegations of false imprisonment and abuse of process.
According to Stern’s attorney’s court papers, the woman traveled to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on Sept. 27 and when she tried to leave on Oct. 12 she was prevented from doing so due to a travel ban being placed on her.
“As plaintiff discovered from the Dubai police, defendant Tate had filed a police complaint against her, had included falsified evidence in doing so and had requested that a travel ban be placed on plaintiff,” Stern’s lawyer state.
In a sworn declaration, Stern says she spend $29,500 to “navigate my detainment” in Dubai and denied making social media posts disparaging to Tate and were attributed to the plaintiff’s account, including that Tate “manipulated little boys” who were “barely legal” into taking his “courses.”
“These tweets appeared to be mixed with real tweets from my account, but they were not real things I had posted,” according to Stern, who said she only wrote about her lawsuit.
Tate has countersued Stern, alleging that she knew her abuse allegations against him were false given that she was a “direct participant” in their consensual encounters.”
“Her intent was not to report misconduct, but to elevate her personal brand and adult content profile by exploiting (Tate’s) fame,” the countersuit filed Aug. 12 alleges.
The damage to Tate’s reputation totals more than $50 million and includes lost sponsorships, canceled business deals and irreversible damage to his global reputation, according to Tate’s lawyers.
But Stern’s attorneys contend Tate’s countersuit should be tossed on First Amendment grounds.
“The name Andrew Tate is synonymous with misogynist,” the attorneys state. “Many people might consider that defamatory if it was said about them, but for … Emory Andrew Tate III, that equivalence is by design.”
“All of Tate’s causes of action are subject to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, all of them fail and all should be stricken,” according to Stern’s attorneys’ pleadings.
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.
A hearing on Stern’s anti-SLAPP motion is scheduled Dec. 11.