Related Post
Garth Brooks has been locked in a legal battle with a former employee for months. He filed a lawsuit in a Mississippi federal court in September accusing Jane Roe of slander, blackmail, and defamation. Around a month later, she filed a suit in California state court accusing the superstar of several counts of sexual misconduct, assault, and rape. Last month, he filed a motion to have his accuser’s suit dismissed and re-filed in a federal court. Earlier this month, a judge denied that motion.
According to a Fox Nashville report, US District Judge Michael Fitzgerald denied Brooks’ motion to dismiss his accuser’s lawsuit in the central district court of California. Brooks’ team hoped to get the case dismissed on the grounds of their “original action” which is still pending at the federal level in Mississippi. Brooks was originally set to be in a California court on Monday (December 16). However, Judge Fitzgerald’s ruling on December 11 allowed the court to vacate yesterday’s scheduled hearing.
[RELATED: Garth Brooks Clinches Small Victory in Ongoing Legal Battle with Former Employee Jane Roe]
There is a silver lining for Brooks in the ruling, though. While Judge Fitzgerald refused to dismiss the California-based suit against the superstar, he did “stay” the proceedings until the federal case had been settled. This means that whatever verdict Brooks receives in Mississippi may hold sway over the court’s findings in California.
More Insights into the Latest Ruling on Garth Brooks’ Legal Battle
Garth Brooks’ legal team filed a motion on November 1 to have Jane Roe’s case in California dismissed. They wanted the court to force her to re-file her suit in the Mississippi federal court. Failing that, they asked that the judge put the California case on hold.
“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,” his legal team explained at the time. “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.
Roe’s legal team disagreed. “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 at the time. “We look forward to getting before a jury and reaching the merits of this case,” they added.
It is important to note that federal cases move faster and judges are more likely to dismiss cases on average. Additionally, federal courts pull their juries from a wider geographic area. Maybe most importantly, it is harder to get a verdict in a federal court than in California’s state court. Only three-fourths of the jury have to agree to reach a verdict in state court. On the other hand, federal courts demand a unanimous decision from the jury.
Featured Image by PG/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images
