Steven Tyler Scores Partial Victory in Child Sexual Assault Lawsuit

Lawsuit in California The allegation that Steven Tyler sexually abused a 16-year-old girl in the 1970s is moving forward in slightly reduced form after a successful challenge by the Aerosmith singer.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ronald F. Frank ruled Tuesday that accuser Julia Misley, (formerly Julia Holcomb), was beyond the two-year statute of limitations when she included in her lawsuit a pair of emotional distress claims related to the 1997 Aerosmith book Walk This Way: The Autobiography of Aerosmith and Tyler's 2011 book Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?: A Rock 'N' Roll Memoir.

The judge dismissed book-related distress claims from Misley's underlying lawsuit, but said the 66-year-old plaintiff could continue to seek similar damages stemming from the remaining child molestation and child sexual abuse causes of action. Those causes of action are at the heart of Misley's complaint filed in December 2022 under state law that temporarily waived deadlines for filing decades-long child abuse claims.

In her lawsuit originally reported by Rolling rockMisley claims that Tyler sexually assaulted her shortly after her sixteenth birthday and groomed her to they have a three-year relationship in which he became her legal guardian and allegedly “forced” her to have an abortion. Tyler has denied any wrongdoing, claiming he loved Misley and almost married her.

During Tuesday's hearing, Misley's attorney, Michael Reck, argued that the lawsuit's claims related to the book are “inextricably” linked to the alleged sexual abuse and should be covered by the Victims Act revival window of California. He argued that Tyler's “candid” descriptions of sex with Misley in his memoir bordered on “child pornography” and were not protected by the First Amendment.

“He is just a criminal who brags about his crime and makes money from it,” Reck told the court. He said Tyler's accounts of the alleged abuse caused his client great distress. “Writing the book without her consent, her outing to her family and friends, is a continuation of a pattern of behavior that has been unbroken for decades. It absolutely relates to sexual assault, which revives the statute,” Reck said. “The tort never ended. The tort started when it started and continued until the books were published.”

Tyler's attorney, David Long-Daniels, argued that his client was “talking about a woman he thought was the love of his life.” He said Tyler “is not a criminal and has never been convicted of anything.” Although the writ motion that was the subject of Tuesday's hearing focused on Tyler's books, Long-Daniels argued that Misley's entire Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claim should be considered too old to proceed, even if related to her claims. of abuse dating back to when she was a minor. The judge disagreed. It only touched on allegations related to books published after Misley turned 18.

“While the court appreciates that the memoir may have triggered the memory of alleged childhood sexual abuse, the revival statute revives actions that plaintiffs allegedly suffered when plaintiffs were minors,” Judge Frank said in his ruling. . He said the deadline for Misley to sue over the books would be “2013 at the latest.”

“We agree with the reasoning of the judge. Follow the law. It's a good day for us,” Long-Daniels said Rolling rock after listening. No trial date has been set for the case, but the next hearing is scheduled for late April.

Last month, a separate lawsuit accusing Tyler of sexual assault was dismissed by a New York judge because the plaintiff, former child model Jeanne Bellino, did not allege that Tyler's actions posed a “serious risk of bodily injury.” The judge said that by that omission, her complaint did not meet the criteria for New York's Gender-Based Violence Victim Protection Act, the law she filed. Bellino's attorney, Jeff Anderson, responded that Tyler's attorneys failed to serve their motion to dismiss on Bellino, so she was not given adequate time to respond. In a March 7 order, the court said Bellino could pursue a motion to amend her complaint.