Tyler Perry Fires Back at $260M Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Tyler Perry has just fired back against. Derek Dixon's sexual harassment claims. in a big way and has made a number of. arguments for why this whole case, this. whole lawsuit should be thrown out. Time. to break it down with an attorney who. has handled numerous celebrity legal. cases, Bradford Cohen. Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. All right, we have quite the response. from Tyler Perry that we need to talk. about. This is in response to a lawsuit.

that was filed against him by actor. Derek Dixon who accused Perry of. essentially quidd proquo sexual. harassment. This $260 million lawsuit. Now, the lawsuit that was filed out in. California reads, "This case arises from. a sustained pattern of workplace sexual. harassment, assault, and retaliation. perpetrated by Tyler Perry, a powerful. media mogul against plain of Derek. Dixon, a professional actor and. screenwriter. Mr. Perry is an American. actor, filmmaker, and playwright who has.

built one of the most successful careers. in the film and television industry. Mr. Perry took his success in power and used. his considerable influence in the. entertainment industry to create a. coercive, sexually exploitative dynamic. with Mr. Dixon, initially promising him. career advancement and creative. opportunities such as producing his. pilot and casting him in his show only. to subject him to escalating sexual. harassment, assault and battery, and. professional retaliation when Mr. Dixon. did not reciprocate Mr. Perry's unwanted.

advances. These events occurred while. Mr. Dixon was employed as a series. regular on the Tyler Perry show The. Oval. And while Mr. Perry held direct. control over his employment, compensation, and creative. opportunities. Now, according to Dixon, he tried to essentially brush off. Perry's advances and these flirty text. messages, even alleged groping, but. claims that Perry would threaten to kill. off his character on the show. Now, Perry, this is what we're going to be.

talking about, has responded in court. documents saying that this suit is. profoundly disappointing, cynical, that. it is a lawsuit relying on quote. Hollywood stereotypes and the bad acts. of others. Quote, Dixon invents alleged. assaults and encounters that never. happened. His filings go on to say, quote, Mr. Perry never assaulted Dixon. or committed any sexual battery. He did. not offer Dixon payraises and shoot. Dixon's television pilot script to. threaten, coersse, or control Dixon. And.

it is notable that in his effort to. exploit his friendship and professional. relationship with Mr. Perry to obtain a. $260 million payday, Dixon was forced to. lie not only about Mr. Perry, but. himself, too. That the suit is about. quote Dixon's greed and avarice, not Mr. Perry's alleged and non-existent. harassment or abuse. goes on to say, "By. his actions and false accusations, it is. clear that Dixon needs help, but he. cannot find it in this court." And the.

filing goes on to state that Perry quote. looks forward to refuting each and every. false accusation in court. Pretty strong. words. And by the way, I haven't even. gotten into Perry's argument for why. this case should be completely thrown. out, which may work. I don't know. We'll. discuss. Plus, we have more words, a. response from Dixon's side. So, let me. bring in somebody who knows a thing or. two about high-profile celebrity cases. Defense attorney to the stars. Bradford. Cohen is once again with us. Bradford, so good to see you. Um, you know, you're. taking you're taking some time away, not.

only from your busy law practice, but. your social media presence. You're. blowing up on my social media every 5. seconds, but thank you. Um, you just. heard me lay out some of the responses. from Tyler Perry's side completely. denying these accusations. Just your. thoughts on that. Let's start there. >> Well, I think that's the only way to do. it. I mean, what else are you going to. say is that it didn't happen. This is. exaggerated. This is kind of a a Harvey. Weinsteinesque. uh, you know, accusation that this is. what Hollywood's about, but I didn't do.

it. Uh, it didn't happen like this. I. was just a mentor. I was trying to help. this guy along, and this is very cynical. of him to file the lawsuit. I mean, that's the only response that you can. really make in this type of case is to. say it just didn't happen. It's going to. come down to the evidence. It's going to. come down to, you know, the texts and. the what we call the receipts. So, we're. going to have to see where this case. goes. But the denial in itself really. doesn't mean much. I mean, I would. expect a denial.

>> Obviously, this is a story that we. wanted to bring to you. And we can do. that not only because of the amazing. support that we get from you all, but. also from our incredible sponsor, Morgan. and Morgan. This is America's largest. injury law firm. This is a firm with. over a thousand attorneys. You know why. they're so big? Because they win all the. time. They have recovered over $25. billion for more than 500,000 clients. In fact, in the past few months, a. client in Florida received $12 million. after the insurance company offered just. $350,000. Out in Pennsylvania, a client was.

awarded $26 million. That is 40 times. the insurers $650,000 offer. There's. another client in Pennsylvania that. received $29 million after being offered. only $500,000. And even if you think. your case isn't worth millions of. dollars, why not just start a claim and. fight for what you deserve? Morgan and. Morgan, they make it so simple. You can. start a claim from your phone in just. eight clicks. So if you're injured, you. can easily start a claim at. forthepeople.com/lcsidebar. by clicking the link below or scanning.

the QR code on screen. A and it raises an issue that we see in. these kinds of cases because this is. interesting because Perry seems to say. that Dixon's allegations don't line up. with his actions. What do I mean by. that? In a motion to dismiss the claims, this motion to dismiss that was filed by. Tyler Perry and his companies. It says, quote, "Defendants deny Dixon's. allegations. The complaint distorts. reality and mischaracterizes a platonic.

friendship that, as it turns out, Dixon. ultimately cultivated for personal. financial gain. So, for example, quote, "In January 2020, Dixon attended a party. at Mr. Perry's Georgia residence and. spent the night in a guest bedroom. Dixon claims Mr. Perry tried to get into. bed with him. Despite this, Dixon. voluntarily came to Mr. Perry's home in. Georgia two months later. In August. 2020, during the COVID pandemic, cast. members quarantined and temporarily. resided at the Tyler Perry Studios.

campus in Georgia so they could film. Dixon claims that Mr. Perry dropped off. alcohol at his house and coerced him to. embibe during phone conversations with. Mr. Perry. Dixon claims that later he. went to Mr. Perry's trailer for drinks. and that Mr. Perry made sexual advances. and tried to grope Pliff's buttocks. About a month later, Dixon voluntarily. accompanied Mr. Perry and other cast. members on a trip to the Bahamas where. he claims Mr. Perry made sexual advances. towards him and allegedly tried to grope.

him. Now, Bradford, it seems to be that. there were that they're saying two. things can't be true at once. This is a. common thing we've seen, right? You're. claiming someone sexually assaulted you. or harassed you and yet you maintain. company with them. you continue to uh uh. you know have contact with them, but. that's not necessarily negating that an. assault or harassment could have. occurred. >> Correct. So, there's a couple things. going on. Number one is this isn't. really for a motion to dismiss. The.

lawyers put all this in to get it out in. the press, right? So, they don't have to. make a statement. The press will pick up. this motion to dismiss and say, "Wait a. minute. look at all these things that he. did and and this is how it should go and. this is what he did, you know, oh, he. sexually uh came on to him January 1st. and then January 10th he's out out at. dinner with him. So, this is a common. theme. It's not really a motion to. dismiss in terms of like, oh yeah, this. is going to work for a motion to. dismiss. It's a common theme. It didn't.

work out for Harvey Weinstein. And in. Harvey Weinstein's case, it was females. and a male. And they were saying, "Hey, listen. Uh, you know, well, she emailed. me, you know, a week after she said that. I sexually harassed her or that I. sexually assaulted her." She emailed me. saying, "Hey, uh, I heard there's a part. coming up and I'd love to try out for. that part." So, it's not unusual. What's. unusual here is how society is going to. look at this where it's two men as. opposed to a woman and a man. Are they. going to say that this man should have.

done something different than a woman in. his position? Which in the Harvey. Weinstein case, the women in those. positions didn't do anything different. They never said, "Harvey, you're a pig. Harvey, uh, you know, I don't care what. you're going to do to my career. I'm not. going into your bedroom." Or, you know, I'm not going to go see you at 3:00 in. the morning to read a uh, you know, a. line on for a movie. It it's going to be. interesting how the press kind of. addresses this because it's a guy and a. guy as opposed to a girl and a guy.

because we look at, you know, women. differently that they, you know, they're. susceptible to this type of thing in. terms of the Harvey Weinstein case. So, are we going to look at it the same way. where a guy should have done something. different? That's what's going to be so. interesting in this case. >> The power dynamic is similar, right? If. you're talking about this actor versus. this mega star, mega producer, uh, content creator, studio executive, right, Tyler Perry, um, the power. dynamic might be the same. And look, you're right. It's not a part of a.

motion to dismiss, per se that a court's. going to say, "Oh, because you made this. argument, we're going to throw it out.". But it does give us a preview of what. may be argued at a trial, particularly. if Dixon takes the stand. But here's. what's interesting. this part, this is. the response, and we're going to get a. little bit more into the legal. ramifications, the legal argument in the. motion to dismiss. But just staying on. this point about whether we can believe. Derek Dixon's claims, his attorney, Jonathan J. Delshod, issued a statement.

to People magazine in response to. Perry's claims. This was on uh Monday, October 13th, saying, quote, "Perry's. filing provides no evidence to. corroborate that the text messages in. our complaint are fabricated. Our. complaint includes text messages where. Mr. Perry made explicit sexual remarks. to Mr. Dixon, questioned him about his. sex life, and dangled professional. opportunities based on those. interactions. No employer has the right. to manipulate or threaten an employees. livelihood based on sexual expectations.

We are certain that we will be able to. prove to a jury that sexual harassment, assault, and battery absolutely. happened. I am convinced that Mr. Dixon. is not the only one and that soon others. will be sharing stories about Mr. Perry. My client is not intimidated by wealth, influence, or the celebrity status of. Mr. Perry. Nobody is above the law. We. are committed to holding Mr. Perry. accountable to the full extent of the. law. And that is an interesting point, right? Because if you look at the text. messages that were part of Dixon's.

lawsuit, there is one, I'll give. everybody an idea. There's one allegedly. from Perry that says, quote, "No. straight man would be going on walks. with you or cooking dinner for you. unless they wanted to bleep you. I would. bleep you." Bradford, if those are the. messages that going to be presented, is. this an open and shut case against Tyler. Perry? Is there nothing more to deny. >> odds that are associated with it? But. I've gone to to trial on cases that I. thought were complete losers and I end.

up winning, you know, and winning big. So, it just depends on the case. These. texts, I think, if they are allowed into. evidence, which I think they will be. I. think they're admissions. I don't see. any kind of hearsay or any kind of way. to keep them out. And if they do come in. and they can establish they came from. Tyler Perry, I think it's going to be a. very difficult case just in terms of the. sexual harassment on the texts. You. know, if I work at IBM, if I work at.

Google, if I work at AOL, I'm showing my. age, I guess, at AOL, but if I work at. any of these places and my direct. supervisor is sending me texts like. this, it would be, you know, this would. be settled in about a second, >> right? >> So, I I think that it's very dangerous. for for Mr. Perry. I listen, and I. always say there's two ways to go about. these cases, and we've talked about this. before in the past, right? There's. either the first way is you settle these. cases for economic damages. You think in.

your head what is this going to cost me. in the long run in terms of my. reputation, in terms of my economic uh. ability to earn money. All these. different things come into a settlement. before a lawsuit is filed. Then there's. the second wave of that is this is total. BS. I'm going to fight it. And like my. sign says, one one war, one Cohen. you. go to war and you don't give up and you. don't, you know, settle the next day. You take depositions. You find out. background on this guy. Has he filed. lawsuits like this before? What is his.

proclivity in terms of his personal. life? All of these different things that. you go after. And you saw Jay-Z do this. very successfully when he was sued by. Tony Busby. And Tony Busby is still. being sued by Jay-Z and he will be being. sued for the next probably 5 years by. Jay-Z because that is the only two ways. to go about this case. This right now. where they are right now I think is very. dangerous with these texts coming out. because these are not good for the.

reputation of Mr. Perry and I don't. doubt there will be other individuals. that will start coming forward when kind. of the dam breaks. lot of interesting. points that you mentioned aside from the. fact AOL and maybe your dialup. connection that you still have. Uh but. no, put that to the side. Um settlement. Okay, let me let me that's a good point. Okay, because I want to get into the. main argument from Tyler Perry about why. this case should be thrown out in the. motion to dismiss. But this was the very. beginning of it. Okay. It says, quote,

"On September 23rd, 24th, and 25th, 2025, defendants council contacted. Pliff's Council in a good faith attempt. to resolve the issues raised in this. motion. The parties were unable to. resolve the dispute, thus necessitating. the filing of this motion." So, Bradford, what does that tell you? They. couldn't come to a meeting of the minds. They couldn't settle this? >> Yeah, I think that there was probably. consideration to settle it. And. generally when they say words like this,

uh, the numbers were off, right? So the. guy might want, you know, $25 million. He might have been offered $500,000. So. the numbers weren't right. I think. that's what that is alleging. But to put. that in a motion generally is not. acceptable. you can actually move to. strike those things because settlement. negotiations in themselves are not. supposed to be part of any kind of. motion you file unless you are enforcing. that settlement. So if there was a. settlement now you're enforcing it yes.

you bring in the terms of the settlement. but to say hey we reached out we tried. to settle this we had a discussion. that's like theater and the courts. usually don't allow that. Just a is. there any point of law where you have to. tell that to the court before you can. bring in a motion to dismiss you? Hey, we've had good faith attempts to try to. resolve this, but we can't get there. >> Only only in terms of the motion to the. Smiths itself, not settlement. negotiations. And generally, it doesn't. give that kind of detail, right? Usually, it says, "Hey, the two parties.

conferred on this motion and we couldn't. come to an agreement." That's it. You. don't say like, "Hey, I reached out the. 23rd, 24th, 25th, tried to resolve this. case, not just this motion." And um and. we couldn't resolve the case. we. couldn't come to a settlement agreement. So yes, you do have to in most. jurisdictions, you have to put in the. motion that you had a good faith. conferral that you tried to reach an. agreement on that motion. So if it's a. motion to dismiss, a summary judgment, a. motion to compel, I reached out to the.

other side. They didn't agree to this. motion to compel. That's why we're. before the court. Now, I I want to get. into this motion to dismiss and see does. he have a legitimate argument to throw. this entire case out and I want to go. through a piece by piece. Going to get a. little granular, but it's very important. to get granular here with the specific. arguments. Basically, what we're talking. about is Tyler Perry and his uh his. companies because they're named as. defendants, too. They make a. jurisdiction argument. They basically.

say, "Mr. Dixon, this case should be. thrown out because you filed it in the. wrong place. you shouldn't have filed. this case in California. So, this is. what it says. Quote, Dixon's. theatrically pled complaint seems like. something that belongs in Hollywood, but. there's no legal basis under which a. California court could exercise personal. jurisdiction over the defendants. All. defendants are Georgia citizens and do. not transact business in California, much less any business that relates to. this lawsuit. Plainif work for. defendants only in Georgia. All of the.

alleged incidents giving rise to Dixon's. claims purportedly took place outside of. California and all contracts between the. parties contain Georgia choice of law. and forum selection clauses. Dixon is. forum shopping. The only yet irrelevant. connection between this dispute and. California is that Dixon moved there in. 2023, over a year after the last. incident of alleged assault. Dixon. cannot come close to meeting his burden. of proving personal jurisdiction exists.

over any defendant because this case. involves inexcusable forum shopping. The. court should dismiss it. Alternatively, the case should be transferred to the. appropriate forum, the US District Court. for the Northern District of Georgia. And I'm going to get into that. But. Bradford, as we get more into the. specifics of this argument, how often. would a case be thrown out on. jurisdictional grounds? And by the way, would an attorney who files a lawsuit. know that? Wouldn't they say, "Look, we. we can't file in California. There's no.

basis here." Um, so how I mean, how. often would that actually happen? >> Right? There's a couple things going on. Sometimes I I've gotten cases dismissed. on jurisdictional issues, venue issues. Uh, if there's a contract that provides. for venue or jurisdiction, sometimes. that happens. Also, if it's removed to. federal court because of the the parties. are in two different jurisdictions, sometimes it'll be removed to federal. court from a state court that I will. actually ask the court to remove it.

because I think that it would be more. favorable in a federal court and that it. would be more appropriate. So, they have. a good argument. What what you have to. look at is does Tyler Perry own any. property in California? Does he have any. ties to California? His company, does do. they have any ties to California? I. would imagine his company does. I don't. know if Tyler Perry himself still owns. any property in California or still has. any jurisdiction in California. whatsoever. So, it's a decent argument. It's not uh you know, put your feather.

in your cap and this case is going to go. away. Obviously, they want to bring it. in Georgia because Tyler Perry probably. will find a jury in Georgia more. favorable than a jury in Hollywood, California, where, you know, people are. used to seeing kind of famous people sue. each other and they don't really care. about it. As opposed to Georgia when it. you have a Georgia jury sitting there. and you're seeing Tyler Perry there, you. might be taken aback for a moment and be. like, "Hey, it's Tyler Perry. He's kind. of famous. This is crazy." So, it it is. a good I think it's a good strategic.

move. Whether or not the court grants. it, it would be dependent on the. contracts obviously that he signed. But. don't forget this is outside of those. contracts. He's not suing for a breach. of contract. He's suing because it is a. sexual harassment case. So then you s. have to look at the ties to California, why they follow filed this lawsuit in. California. And it it really doesn't. seem like it's jury, you know, it's it's.

forum shopping to me, but I think that a. California court would be more. appropriate for this type of case for. the plaintiff than Georgia would. It'll. be he'll find it more favorable in. California. That's my guess. >> I appreciate I appreciate making that. point. I think it's an important point. to make about why Georgia could be. favorable. I'm so happy to have you. because I want to go through Tyler. Perry's arguments a little bit more. specifically. You tell me what you think. of them. Okay. So the first argument for. why the claims should be dismissed is.

because the court lacks personal. jurisdiction over the defendants. And. for everybody out there, you can. exercise jurisdiction over defendant who. doesn't reside in the state. If they. have what is known in the law as quote. minimum contacts with the state and in. the law to exercise personal. jurisdiction over a defendant, there is. general and there is specific. jurisdiction. I feel like back in law. school, but general jurisdiction is. saying, okay, the defendant has. continuous and systematic contacts with.

the state. Specific jurisdiction is. saying the lawsuit itself, the. allegations, they arise out of the. defendant's activities within the state. Okay. So, first, Perry argues there's no. general jurisdiction. Tyler Perry, they. say, is a Georgia resident. He pays tax. He pays taxes there. His primary home is. there. his studio is there. He votes. there. And just because he owns property. in California, that's not enough. That. Dixon doesn't really explain what. Perry's alleged extensive business.

connections or activities are in the. state of California. And as far as. Perry's companies that are named as. defendants in the lawsuit, they say. they're headquartered in Georgia. They. don't operate in California. And. moreover, they make the argument that. this is not an outlier. This is not an. exceptional case where these companies. activities are so continuous or. systematic that they are basically at. home in California. There's no offices. in California. They don't own property. or maintain bank accounts in California.

They're not licensed to do business in. California. There's no registered agent. in California. Now, Bradford, just. taking all of that as true, and I don't. know if um you know, Mr. Dixon is going. to be fighting that and saying, "No, I. can show that they really do have. context there." As far as the court not. having general personal jurisdiction. over the defendants, is that a good. argument? >> I think if you take everything is true, and I don't know if everything is true, I think it's a decent argument. The.

problem is is that I think Mr. Perry. still owns property in California that. may be subject him to uh jurisdiction of. California. I think the companies, they. would have to argue that the companies. don't do business in California, which I. find hard to believe because I think, you know, he's got certain deals with. certain uh, you know, if you made a deal. with Netflix, if you made a deal with. Hulu, any of these companies that deal. that do business in California, if his. businesses dealt with them, if his. businesses had relations with them, I.

think that it becomes a more difficult. argument. Now, if everything is taken as. true that you just said, I think it's a. decent argument for Perry, but I don't. know if everything is actually true. What I know of is that Perry still owns. some property in California, and I think. the corporations still do business with. with studios out in California. So, I. think that's kind of where this is going. to happen and it's going to be a a type. of hearing that's going to have evidence.

presented as to what is the jurisdiction. and each side is going to be able it's. going to be like a mini trial if it's. done correctly. >> So, that was the general jurisdiction. argument. Now, saying the court doesn't. believe that, now we go into specific. personal jurisdiction, right? And this. is another interesting argument because. Perry argues, you know what, there's no. specific personal jurisdiction over me. or my companies because the dispute in. question, what this lawsuit is all. about, none of that relates to our.

contacts in California. So, it says, quote, Dixon alleges he met Mr. Perry in. Georgia while Dixon was living in. Georgia and working for a Georgia- based. event company. Dixon auditioned for and. secured a role in a television series. produced by And Action, a Georgia LLC. that was filmed in Georgia. Dixon. accepted a recurring acting role in. another series that was filmed. exclusively in Georgia. Dixon stayed on.

set at Tyler Perry Studios in Georgia. when CO 19 delayed production. Dixon. wrote a script for a television series. and executed a purchase agreement for. the pilot episode while he lived in. Georgia. Dixon filmed the pilot episode. for that series in Georgia. Dixon. accepted a role in a TPS movie that was. filmed in Georgia. And moreover, Perry. argues that Dixon's decision to relocate. to California in January 2023, that. doesn't matter because that was three. years after he began working for Perry's.

Productions and over a year after the. last alleged assault by Tyler Perry. So, another way to look at it, they argue, is that Dixon's claims, they don't arise. out of the defendant's activities in. California. He wasn't injured in. California or that the defendants aim. their conduct at him in California. And. Perry says litigating this in. California, that would provide an undue. burden on him. Again, he's from Georgia. California itself has no interest in. deciding this case. That's the argument. that it would be more efficient to.

handle it in Georgia because all the. defendants and all the witnesses are. there. Bradford, your take on that. argument? >> So, specific jurisdiction, I think, is. is a loser for the plaintiff because. everything occurred in Georgia. I think. if you look at specific jurisdiction, I. think it's a different question here. And you know the fact that the undue. burden issue is kind of I don't even. look at that argument really that it's. oh it's in California and these guys are. from Georgia it's an undue burden and.

it's a judicial economy. All those kind. of arguments kind of fall by the. wayside. The better argument on specific. jurisdiction is that everything alleged. happened in Georgia. Everything that. possibly could have alleged happened in. Georgia. You know the filming happened. in Georgia. The employment happened in. Georgia. So all of those things is uh is. way more relevant than the oh it's an. undue burden but it's a much much much. stronger argument on the specific but. don't forget they can look at general or.

specific but the specific I think that. he has a very good argument on specific. jurisdiction. general jurisdiction. I. think that the court is going to have to. kind of jump through some hoops and. they're going to have to really look at. a lot of evidence that's provided to see. if there's general jurisdiction. But. then also don't forget you he could try. and go to federal court in California. and because there's diversity of all of. the uh individuals. he lives in. California and everyone else lives in. Georgia and he's going to say they still.

have some ties to California with, you. know, property and dealings and business. dealings. And a federal court may look. at that a lot more favorable to the. plaintiff than a state court, >> especially when you're suing for $260. million. I mean, you get that threshold. to get into. Okay. This is something you. mentioned before and I think it's. another interesting argument that Perry. makes. He says, "Look at what Dixon. signed when he started working for us.". Quote, "When he signed his performer. agreements, plaintiff agreed that quote, if a dispute or portion thereof or any. claim for a particular form of relief.

not otherwise precluded by any other. provision of this agreement, they may. not be arbitrated pursuant to applicable. state or federal law may be heard only. in a court of competent jurisdiction of. Falton County applying Georgia law. without regard to its choice of laws. principles." quote, "Dixon cannot meet. the heavy burden of showing that the. clauses are unreasonable or unjust or. procured through fraud." Now, Brad, for. going back to what you said, you know, one, some would say, "Oh my gosh, all. right, says it in the contract. There.

you go. Georgia law, Georgia courts.". But you said, you know, what he's suing. for is outside the contract. So, how. much do you think that argument is. strong? I I I personally think it's a. pretty good argument to say it's, you. know, sexual harassment is not. anticipated when you when you sign an. employment agreement. And I've made that. argument in several cases and and some. of them I was successful in. I'll be. honest with you, one of them I wasn't. But, you know, in terms of signing that. contract and agreeing to the terms of. the contract, is it anticipatory that.

you would be sexually harassed and. that's what is is going to be. applicable? you know, an arbitration or. something like that. There's no specific. language to that. And a lot of companies. want that. A lot of companies want an. arbitration because it keeps it quiet. When, you know, the president of a. company sexually harasses some employee, you want to try and keep that quiet. So, they put in arbitration clauses. specifically for that point. But a lot. of times those arbitration clauses are. written so poorly like this one seems to.

be so overly broad that I don't know if. it will be applicable to a sexual. harassment case or an or you know an an. environment with with sexual harassment. at a workplace. So I think there's a lot. going on. I think that you know this. opens the door really to is a um you. know there could be federal. investigations into this allegation as. well. I don't know if it would be. considered a a civil or federal crime. because I don't know all the allegations.

that are going to be made in here. But. like I said, this opens the dam. You. know, all of a sudden the crack is. there. And I think that a lot is going. to flow from this. And you saw that in. the Shawn Combmes case. I mean, take it. take it for what it is. the allegations. are different, but you saw it in the. Shawn Colmes case where a civil case was. filed and what flowed from that was a. lot more cases that came up, both. criminal and civil. You saw that in the. same thing with Harvey Weinstein. I. think depending on how this case goes,

you could see that same thing in this. case. If there's a lot more victims that. come forward and this is a pattern that. Mr. Perry has, I think that you're, you. know, he's in for a rough ride. And. before I let you go, I want to ask you. what you think the court's going to do. here because obviously one alternative, one one option is they could dismiss all. the claims. They will agree with uh. Tyler Perry and say this shouldn't be. filed in California court. Now, the. reason I say that's maybe one option, curious thoughts. The other option is.

Tyler Perry provides an alternative to. throwing the whole case out. Transfer it. from California to Georgia. You. mentioned before about what the. advantages might be in Georgia for Tyler. Perry. Um, and again he makes the. argument because that's where it should. have been brought. They're better. equipped at dealing with Georgia law. He. writes, "The purported actions occurred. outside of California. Valid contractual. choice of law provisions exist requiring. Georgia law and a Georgia court will be. more familiar with Georgia law. Georgia. law also applies to Dixon's state law. tort claims because California courts. apply the laws of the state where the.

tort is committed. So Bradford, before I. let you go, what do you think a court's. going to do here? Do you think they're. going to side with Tyler Perry and say. either we're dismissing this whole case. or Georgia, it's coming to you? I. >> I'm going to give you the the the the. lawyer answer in I don't know all of the. all of the facts that are going to come. out about the jurisdictional clause, but. I will tell you I don't think the court. will just transfer it to the Northern. District of Georgia. I think they will. dismiss it without prejudice if they're.

going to dismiss and allow them to. refile. In Georgia, it's very unlikely. that courts transfer to other states. It. does happen, but usually federal court. to federal court, sometimes state to. federal court, pretty much very very. infrequently, almost never. Um, but I. don't think that this court would do. that is just transfer it to the Northern. District of Georgia. I think they would. either dismiss it outright and allow. them to file in Georgia, dismiss it.

without prejudice based on. jurisdictional clause or they will find. that they have significant or at least. minimal ties to California to be able to. sue them in California after some sort. of hearing or an evidentiary motion. So. the court may say, "Hey, give me all. your evidence to show that they do have. these ties to California and we will. take it from there." there. You know, there's all these famous cases, the. Brown Shoe Company. We're going to we're. going to get into all these minutia.

about jurisdictional clauses, I think, and the court will really take a good. look at it. Gen generally speaking, they. have hearings on it, but some courts. will rule on the documents that you. provide them. >> Bradford Cohen, love having you on. Thank you so much for breaking it down. for us so we can all understand what's. happening here, what to expect. Uh. again, thanks so much for taking the. time. >> Thanks for having me. And that is all we. have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining. us. And as always, please subscribe on. YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify,

wherever you should get your podcasts. You can follow me on X or Instagram. I'm. Jesse Weber. I'll see you next time.