Tyler Perry Claps Back at Model in 'Money Grab' Sex Assault Lawsuit

Tyler Perry is fighting back against the. model accusing him of sexual [music]. assault. In a brand new legal filing, Perry responds to this multi-million. dollar lawsuit filed against him, and he. is arguing to the court there are. multiple reasons why these claims should. be tossed out. Welcome [music] to. Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. All right, real quick, I got to say it's. that time of year again, tax time, always stressful. Maybe you owe back. taxes, maybe you have unfiled returns,

maybe you pulled money from your 401k, maybe you got hit with an unexpected. bill. No matter the reason, the. outcome's the same. Penalties grow, the. interest compounds, you could owe again. with no plan in place. The IRS, they're. not waiting. They could enforce. collections through wage garnishments or. property seizures, file without your. consent. But with over 15 years in. business, Tax Network USA has seen it. all and resolved over $1 billion in. debt. No matter the amount, they help. taxpayers get back on track, and they. can do the same for you. But you got to. call right now. They're offering a free. investigation call with the IRS, after.

which they'll put a clear plan in place. for you. So don't wait for another IRS. letter. Call 866-981-4548. or visit tnusa.com/lc. or click the link below. Well, you have. this Tyler Perry lawsuit that is heating. up once again. The actor director is. responding to a reported $77 million. lawsuit that was filed against him back. in December of last year out in. California state court. In his legal. answer to the complaint, and I'm going.

to get into what that means in a minute. It's very, very specific, very, very. particular. I will tell you what he's. arguing, okay? But first I got to set. the stage. You have this model actor. named Mario Rodriguez, who apparently. had a small part in Tyler Perry's 2016. film Boo! A Madea Halloween, sued Tyler. Perry. Sued him for sexual assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction. of emotional distress, and negligent. retention. And it doesn't just name. Tyler Perry. This lawsuit also targets. his production company and Lionsgate.

This is a studio that distributes his. films and basically accusing them of. knowing about his alleged inappropriate. behavior and enabling it. So, what are. the key allegations? Well, Rodriguez. claims that Perry used the promise of. roles in a Hollywood career to groom. him, to make sexual advances, to touch. him, to sexually abuse him. And the suit describes this alleged. pattern of isolating him and prying into.

his childhood trauma and escalating. physical contact and explicit. propositions. Basically, Rodriguez. claims that Perry wanted to meet him to. talk about offering an acting role in. his production, allegedly saying at one. point, "You know, Mario, I'm not a bad. person to know and have in your corner, but in reality," Rodriguez claims, he. alleges that this was all a ruse because. what really Perry wanted to do, according to him, was. sexually abuse him. He talked about a. personal interest, a personal. attraction. And he highlights how a lot.

of this happened at Perry's home when he. would visit his home and the filmmaker. would ask him personal questions. Allegedly, this happened at one point, quote, "Mr. Perry told him, 'You have a. lot of trauma in you. Believe it or not, we have a lot in common.'" Mr. Perry. told Mr. Rodriguez to stand up and said, "Come here, man. Let me hug you." Mr. Perry hugged Mr. Rodriguez and said, "It's not your fault." In the moment, Mr. Rodriguez could not help but feel. that Mr. Perry was trying to reenact the. famous scene between Matt Damon and.

Robin Williams from the acclaimed 1997. movie Good Will Hunting. Now, Rodriguez. allegedly claims that these encounters. with Perry turned physically invasive. Allegations of Perry rubbing his. shoulders, rubbing his chest while. making comments, suggestive comments, even rubbing his inner thigh. And when. Rodriguez apparently became. uncomfortable, According to Rodriguez, Perry was. persistent saying just relax. I promise. I'm a good guy to know and have in your. corner. You just need to relax and stop.

being so tense. Man, if you would just. come, I would take care of you for the. rest of your life and you wouldn't have. to worry about anything and I know. you'll come around. He also alleged that. Perry would manipulate Rodriguez's. financial situation allegedly saying, "If you just give in to me, I would take. care of you. You would never have to. worry about anything again.". Perry also allegedly shared that he. himself was quote sexually molested as a. kid and that he used this to try to. manipulate or groom Rodriguez. And the. complaint argues that he used that.

shared trauma as a tactic to build trust. before making more advances. And this is. when Rodriguez claims that Perry would. sexually assault him. Like allegedly. grabbing his leg right by his private. area allegedly saying, "It's all right.". When Rodriguez kept refusing the alleged. advances, he claims the roles dried up. The suit states plainly, "Because Mr. Rodriguez continually rejected Mr. Perry's sexual advances and assaults, Mr. Perry never hired him for Medea's. Halloween 2 despite all their. conversations for new roles for. Rodriguez." Here's another key incident.

alleged in the complaint happened in. November 2018 according to Rodriguez. that this happened at Perry's house. Quote, "Mr. Perry followed Mr. Rodriguez. to the kitchen. Then Mr. Perry tightly. hugged Mr. Rodriguez and repeatedly told. him to hold on while Mr. Perry tried to. unbuckle Mr. Rodriguez's pants." The. complaint states that after Perry. allegedly grabbed Rodriguez in the. genital area, Rodriguez allegedly said. no, struggled to get free, and that is. when according to Rodriguez, Perry tried. to pay him off by giving him $5,000. And.

he alleges another unwanted advance too. where Perry tried to allegedly pay him. off again. But then there are the text. messages that are embedded in the. complaint. Okay? This is really key to. this lawsuit and a little bit later on. when we talk about Perry's defense, keep in mind what that defense is given. these messages. I think he's doing. something very specific here. So, for. example, the messages that are in the complaint, you have one that says, allegedly from. Perry to Rodriguez, "I haven't heard. from you.". When Rodriguez seemingly apologized,

Perry responded, "I deserve a text at. least once a month." There was also. alleged texts like, "Good night. F off. I wanted to give you so much S. You. never text unless something is going on. A text saying, 'No, you're busy. Just. saying hi' is what all my friends do.". And in the end, he claims he never got. additional work from Tyler Perry. So, the lawsuit claims that Rodriguez. decided to come forward in 2025 after. learning of a similar lawsuit that was. filed by actor Derrick Dixon. This is. something that we covered on Sidebar as.

well. So, Dixon filed a reported $260. million lawsuit in California accusing. Tyler Perry of quid pro quo sexual. harassment and assault. And Perry's. legal team fought back hard calling it a. failed money grab. And by the way, Dixon. and Rodriguez reportedly share the same. attorney, apparently. And shortly after. Mario Rodriguez's lawsuit became public, Rodriguez posted a video addressing his. choice to speak out. Listen to what he. said. This is part of it. Hello, everyone. Um.

just checking in with you guys about the. news that I mentioned a couple days ago. Um. I wanted to talk to you guys a little. bit about sexual assault. and harassment. And. why the people. stay silent. For a long time, guys, I. didn't want to say anything. And I wanted to tell you guys why I. didn't want to say anything. But when it happened to me, I felt ashamed. I was scared.

because of the judgment and the. questions that people were going to. start asking. Almost like if it would. they were going to blame me. for just being there. While I felt all of that, guys, when a very big director, a very. seriously powerful person that everybody. knows, invited me over to his house, um to talk about the roles. and upcoming things that he was writing. I was telling myself like, "Man, like. all of my.

dreams are coming true right now. Like. my opportunity's at my front door right. now.". Um so many so much excitement going. through me and my body. And then, guys, it happens. You know, my boundaries were crossed. You feel like this person feels like. they got power over you because of the. op- because of the situation and the. opportunity that presented itself in. front of you. And then you stir. And how fear. can somewhat keep you quiet.

and keep you silent. Well, I stayed quiet for much too long. And I just want to say I'm really sorry, man, because if I would have spoken up. sooner, I could have saved somebody. that this probably happened to after me. I just want to say sorry for that, whoever that may be. It could have. stopped with me if I would have said. something. But I do apologize and I'm speaking up. now and getting it out there and talking. about it most importantly, then so be.

it. And I just want to apologize once again, guys, because I'm sorry I can't really. talk about more than what I've talked. about right now, but I will. be. giving you guys an update very soon. about the whole situation that happened. in detail. So, stay tuned. And um thank you guys for hearing me. out. I appreciate it. Okay, so with all that in mind, now. let's get to Perry's legal response, the.

answer. Now, in a lawsuit where the. person suing lays out all the alleged. facts and all the claims, the causes of. action against the person that they're. suing, the answer is a formal legal. response where the defendant either. admits or denies information, certain. points in the complaint, and also lays. out the affirmative defenses. Meaning, "Hey, if I can prove something, there is. no way the plaintiff can win." I'm going. to talk a little bit more about the. affirmative defenses, but before I do,

got to start with this really explosive. preliminary statement that's in the. answer. Quote, "Plaintiff's complaint is a $77 million. money grab. Plaintiff fabricates a story. based on a decade worth of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outlandish. claims that have no basis in fact or law. and no merit. Plaintiff is manipulating. the judicial system in a last-ditch. effort to shake down Perry to further. fund his profligate lifestyle after.

years of seeking out Perry for money. After being cast in a very minor role in. a single Perry film a decade ago, Plaintiff repeatedly turned to Perry as. his personal piggy bank, begging for. financial assistance for his car, apartment, medical services, and unpaid. bills. All the while, Plaintiff would. press for invites to spend time with. Perry at his home, on trips, events, and. fancy dinners. Desperate for money, Rodriguez. repeatedly preyed on Perry's generosity. with a feigned friendship until Perry.

finally stopped giving in to Plaintiff's. exploitations in 2025. When Plaintiff's. repeated requests for more financial. assistance were met with silence, angry. at the loss of his golden goose, Plaintiff spun a false tale that the two. had a non-consensual relationship, twisting the true reason for the. payments to ignite a media firestorm, all to fuel his final money grab and. thrust him into the spotlight. As. evidence of his intent to use this bogus. complaint as a vehicle to con his way to.

millions, Plaintiff filed against a. fraudulently joined defendant, Lionsgate, who has no employment. relationship with Perry or plaintiff, and no knowledge of the misconduct he. alleges occurred, with the sole purpose. of destroying complete diversity. Defendants have filed a notice of. removal simultaneous with this answer. That might be a reference, by the way, to diversity jurisdiction, which is a. way for a federal court to hear a case. We're going to talk about that a little. bit more. But now I want to go to the. answer, okay? Because defendants have.

filed this answer. Now, Perry vehemently. denies plaintiff's misrepresentations. and distortions of fact, and sets forth. a general denial and affirmative. defenses to the meritless allegations in. the complaint below. So, completely different narrative than the. allegations in the complaint, right? First thing I had to wonder is whether. or not Tyler Perry has other text. messages, other communications, maybe. witnesses, to show this, to show what he.

claims is Rodriguez making this up, that. Rodriguez was kind of leeching off of. him. Interesting to think about. Now, from here, the answer, this formal. document, does what we have seen so many. times. Pursuant to California Code of. Civil Procedure, Perry denies, both. generally and specifically, each and. every allegation, matter, or fact. contained in plaintiff's complaint and. each and every cause of action therein. And by the way, this is interesting, too. Perry denies that Rodriguez. suffered any injury or damage or loss.

for purposes of damages, right? Money. payout. I mean, Rodriguez in this suit. claims physical sickness, anxiety, body. pains, PTSD, harm to his reputation, emotional distress. Perry is denying. that. And more specifically, you'll see. how he denies it. We'll get to that. So, now we're at the point where Perry lays. out his affirmative defenses to the. claims. Why this case should not go. forward. First up, you see this one a. lot of times in almost every answer,

almost every case, failure to state a. cause of action. Basically, it means even if you take. everything in the complaint as true, there is no viable claim here. There's. no viable cause of action. That. Rodriguez hasn't laid out enough to. support a battery claim or assault claim. or intentional infliction of emotional. distress claim or negligent retention. claim. That he hasn't met the legal. requirements. Second affirmative. defense, lack of injury or damages. So,

this is similar to what I said before, but Perry is making the argument that. Rodriguez didn't suffer anything by any. of the alleged acts, whether or not. they're even attributable to Tyler. Perry. That Tyler Perry is not liable. here. Now, that's an interesting legal. angle. Sometimes you see that in a. causation analysis, which by the way, we'll talk a little bit more about, but. to give you an example, you could say, "Sure, the evidence proves that a person. suing does suffer from PTSD, but the. counterargument is you're not the reason.

for it. You didn't cause it. It could be. from something else, X, Y, and Z. They. didn't prove that you're the cause of. it." So, just something to keep in mind. here. The third affirmative defense, attorney's fees. Now, I have to say this. one is a little different because. Perry claims, again, the complaint is. frivolous, and now he has to go out and. get attorneys and pay to fight this, and. he basically makes the argument that he. should be reimbursed for the costs. Now, while that's not unusual, while you see.

that in many lawsuits, I personally. haven't seen that laid out typically as. an affirmative defense in that category. Usually, affirmative defenses are like. failure to state a claim or there's a. statute of limitations, that it's time. barred. Again, taking everything as. true, this case just can't proceed under. the law. Lack of standing, meaning you. don't have a right to sue. But look, maybe under California. California law it's different and you. have to put it in there. Not entirely. sure, maybe in the comments somebody can. address that. Fourth,

you have failure to state facts. sufficient to recover punitive damages. Okay, so basically Tyler Perry is. arguing that Rodriguez didn't properly. lay out enough facts to support awarding. punitive damages. These can be costly. You're talking about punishing a. defendant, punishment damages, because. he makes the argument that Rodriguez. didn't show that Perry allegedly acted. with malice, oppression, or fraud, which. would be necessary. Again, even assuming.

everything in there is true. Now, I do. wonder if the judge here will allow. Rodriguez to amend his complaint should. the court entertain this, agree with. Tyler Perry, but we'll see. The fifth. affirmative defense is consent. Now, this is very very interesting. It reads, "While denying the allegations in the. complaint regarding alleged contact, the complaint and each cause of action. alleged therein is barred in whole or in. part because plaintiff consented to any.

contact by Perry." Kind of covering. bases here. I was wondering about this. when I first covered the case because. given the text messages, and I know we. live in an AI day and age, things can be. replicated, manufactured. I don't see. any kind of allegation here about that. I think it might kind of tough to show. that, but also it's very hard, typically. speaking, to say you didn't send that. message or it's fake, okay? So, how do. you explain these messages? Would it be. hard to deny Perry's alleged interest in.

or apparent relationship with Rodriguez? Again, it's an allegation. Perry, you. know, he's reserving his rights here. He's not saying, "Yes, I admit to. anything. Yes, I admit to contact." He's. not saying that. Allow the plaintiff. here, Rodriguez, to prove that. He's got. the burden. But, it is interesting cuz. he's kind of covering his bases. What do. you have to say? Okay, yeah, there was. personal contact of some sort, but. it was all consensual. So, instead of a. flat-out denial, you know, instead of.

saying I never invited him to my house, I never touched him, all lies, is there. an element where it would be, yes, he came over, yes, I touched him, but he. was on board with everything. It was. consensual. Interesting to think about. Sixth. affirmative defense, failure to. mitigate. So, another common defense in. lawsuits. So, basically under the law, sometimes a plaintiff, right, the person. suing, has a duty to avoid certain harm. Don't make the situation worse for. yourself and expect that you're going to.

recover more money, you're going to. recover more damages. There is a duty to. limit your harm. There is a duty to. mitigate your damages. A classic. example, learned it in law school, you. see it in property disputes, if a tenant. illegally breaks a lease, right, and a. landlord sues the tenant, a landlord. still has a legal duty to try to find a. replacement tenant. You can't just. deliberately keep that apartment vacant. and say, "Look, I'm losing all this. money day in and day out." No, you have. a duty to try to mitigate, to limit your.

damages. So, basically Perry here is. saying. Rodriguez didn't do that. Seventh. affirmative defense, proximate. alternative causation. Now, I talked. about this before. It reads, quote, "Whatever injury or. damage may have been sustained by. plaintiff was not proximately caused by. any act or omission on the part of. Perry." Now, proximate causation, proximate cause, is doing something that. actually causes the harm. It was. foreseeable what you did could cause. this harm, and what you did played a.

substantial factor in that harm. occurring. Eighth affirmative defense, laches. Okay, legal term here. Idea here, let's. say Rodriguez does have a valid claim. The problem is under latches, he. allegedly waited an unreasonable amount. of time before he filed this lawsuit and. that is not fair to Tyler Perry to. defend. So it's not that the claims are. time barred or that they're too old and. they can't be brought. It's that the. delay in bringing a lawsuit is a problem.

because it's now unfair to the defendant. in some way. And if a court entertains. this, Rodriguez would seemingly have to. explain why he brought this claim now of. all times. And look, mentioned it. before, maybe it was the Dixon lawsuit. and he felt comfortable coming forward. then. Something to think about. Ninth. affirmative defense. Conduct not outrageous. So defendant. Perry's alleged conduct does not meet. the requisite standard of being so. extreme or outrageous as to exceed all.

bounds of decency. What does this mean? So this seems to be for the intentional. infliction of emotional distress claim. Basically, the alleged conduct didn't. rise to the level of that extreme of. conduct to justify that claim. Because. for that specific cause of action, intentional infliction of emotional. distress, yes, it can be broad. Yes, it. can encompass a lot of behavior, but it. has to meet quite a certain high. threshold. You're talking about really, really, really bad behavior. 10th affirmative defense. No emotional.

distress. Okay, going back to the same. idea that the plaintiff cannot show any. acts or conduct by Perry caused him. emotional distress because his. allegations of harassment and other. misconduct are false and fabricated. Pretty self-explanatory there, right? Goes to the intentional infliction of. emotional distress claim. 11th. affirmative defense, intent. Okay. The. complaint in each and every cause of. action asserted therein is barred. because Perry did not act with the. requisite degree of intent or fault. So. this goes to the elements of the claims.

Obviously, intentional infliction of. emotional distress. So if Perry did. cause Rodriguez emotional distress, he. didn't do it on purpose, he didn't do it. deliberately, he didn't do it. intentionally. Also goes to these other. claims like sexual assault and battery. that have specific intent elements, right? It reads in the complaint, "Defendants committed the acts herein. alleged maliciously and fraudulently. with the wrongful intention of injuring. plaintiff and with an improper and evil. motive rising to the level of malice and.

conscious disregard of plaintiff's. rights." It also helps support the. punitive damages. 12th affirmative. defense, waiver. So, Perry is arguing. that the claims are barred because. Rodriguez voluntarily gave up a right or. privilege here. Now, it's not entirely. clear to me how this is applying here, but maybe, I don't know, waiting to file. the lawsuit. Usually see that in a. contract dispute, right? There's a. waiver in there. You assumption of the. risk. 13th affirmative defense, unclean. hands. So, Perry is arguing that the.

claims are barred because Rodriguez not. an innocent actor here. He's not. innocent in this. That Perry shouldn't. have to pay up if, for example, Rodriguez is a bad actor in terms of bad. faith. You kind of heard those. allegations from Perry in his. preliminary statement, so I think that's. where he's going with that. 14th. affirmative defense, due care. Now, defendant Perry has at all times. exercised due care in regard to any. actions, conduct, or other matters. alleged in plaintiff's complaint. Now, why I say that? Perry basically is.

making the argument, as far as I can. see, that everything I did was on the up. and up. It wasn't negligent. It wasn't. wrongful. I followed my duty. 15th affirmative defense, superseding. and/or intervening causation. Back to. the causation conversation. So, here. again, Perry is claiming that any harm. suffered by Rodriguez was the result of. some intervening, some superseding act. by somebody else, not him. Perry isn't. liable to Rodriguez. Or at the very. least, there is shared responsibility.

over a cause of harm to Rodriguez and. that reduces Perry's legal liability. here that he would only have to pay a. proportion of the damages. 16th. affirmative defense. Several liability. for non-economic damages. Very similar. here that under the law if there is. shared responsibility for a wrong for a. harm suffered the defendants, okay, share that liability in terms of paying. out the damages but in a several.

capacity not a joint capacity meaning. each defendant only is liable for the. damages in direct proportion to their. fault. Not everybody's paying out a. million dollars but only let's say 10%. 25% because that's how much they were at. fault for. 17th affirmative defense. Lack of injury or damages. So defendant. Perry denies the plaintiff suffered any. injury or damage whatsoever and further. denies any liability to plaintiff for. any supposed injury or damage. Pretty.

self-explanatory there. 18th affirmative. defense. Plaintiff's alleged injuries. and damages were caused in whole or part. by pre-existing conditions or other. contributory or concurrent conditions or. factors including events that occurred. before or after the occurrence that form. the basis of the allegations in. plaintiff's complaint. So think that. comes back into play when you talk about. PTSD and emotional distress and mental. anguish again saying this isn't Perry's. fault. Something else caused all this. 19th affirmative defense. Reservation of.

rights. Defendant's investigation of the. allegations raised in plaintiff's. complaint is continuing. Accordingly, defendant reserves the right to raise. additional affirmative defenses. He's. not waving anything. Okay. So those are the affirmative defenses. and now I just want to move on to one. more part in this answer. It's called. statement of intent to remove. So Perry. and Lionsgate want to move this case out. of California state court to federal. court. Now that's strategic. Different. jurisdiction, maybe a larger pool of. judges, maybe a more favorable court,

maybe a more favorable forum, maybe a. larger jury pool, maybe even a more. neutral ground. And Perry may be saying. that California is not right for him. since his primary residence is in. Georgia. But you have to meet certain. requirements there like the amount in. controversy that you're talking about. here exceeds $75,000. I think you can get that with the. damages amount. And you're dealing with. citizens of different states. Look, Rodriguez, California, Perry, Georgia.

By the way, in the Dixon case, a judge. had ordered that that case be moved to. Georgia federal court from California, I. believe federal court there. So, there. you go. Big response from Tyler Perry. We will see what happens next in this. We're going to continue to follow it. here on Sidebar. But that's all we have. for you right now. Thank you so much for. joining us. And as always, please. subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your podcast. You can also check us out by the way on. NBC's [music] Peacock. We have Sidebar. episodes up there, too. If you want to. follow me, X, Instagram, my NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber [music] Live, Monday.

through Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. I'll. see you next time, everybody.