Latest news with #LosAngelesCountySuperiorCourt
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Heavy stuff': Gavin Newsom discusses Menendez brothers case ahead of parole hearing
Before the hit Netflix drama on the Menendez brothers case aired, showrunner Ryan Murphy warned Gov. Gavin Newsom over lunch that the series would likely create a stir. Newsom and Murphy discussed the lunch — and the controversial case — on the latest episode of the governor's podcast, 'This is Gavin Newsom.' 'You start talking to me about this and you all but said, 'I'm sorry,'' Newsom recalled on the 45-minute episode. He added, with a chuckle: 'I didn't fully appreciate how right you were to be sorry.' 'Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,' which premiered last September, put a spotlight yet again on the case of the two brothers, who were convicted of first-degree murder in 1996 and sentenced to life in prison for the 1989 shotgun deaths of their parents in the family's Beverly Hills mansion. In May, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge resentenced them to 50 years to life, making them eligible for parole. Their parole hearing is set for Aug. 21 and 22. If the parole board recommends their release, Newsom will make the final decision on whether to grant them parole. 'That's heavy stuff,' Murphy said on the podcast episode. 'Heavy stuff,' Newsom replied. The governor said he has been tempted repeatedly to watch the series, but he has purposely avoided it because the matter could soon land on his desk. 'I don't want to be persuaded by something that's not in the files,' Newsom said. Murphy recalled that during the writing of the show, and even when he and Newsom had lunch, he was not convinced that the brothers deserved freedom, but his outlook evolved, he said, particularly after conversations with Kim Kardashian, a collaborator of Murphy's who watched the show before it was released. 'She was really obsessed with it and then went to visit them,' Murphy said. The reality TV star, who completed her law studies in May, told Murphy she believed they deserved parole, stressing that both brothers were under the age of 25 at the time of the brutal killings. Studies show the prefrontal cortex, responsible for functions like planning, decision-making and impulse control, doesn't fully develop for men until their mid- to late 20s. Murphy also cited the brothers' family support and positive behavior in prison. 'I guess it just begs the question: If not now, when?' Murphy asked. 'What benefit to society do we have by keeping them there if they can come out of prison and actually serve some good? I think that's a powerful thing.' Newsom countered with the argument he said he's heard from others: 'What good can come from sending a message that you can kill both of your parents and be released?' At the same time, Newsom said, other inmates have been granted parole for similar or worse crimes and spent less time in prison. He noted that psychiatric evaluations and risk assessments are meant to determine suitability for parole based on what he called 'well-established' criteria, such as inmates' behavior in prison. Newsom also discussed parole decisions he's made in the cases against convicted killers who were followers of cult leader Charles Manson, including Leslie Van Houten, who was released from prison on parole in 2023. Newsom had rejected her parole recommendation but was overruled by a state appeals court. 'The last rejection was overturned by the court that felt we were abusing our discretion in our parole office and they're tough,' Newsom said. 'It's a very slippery slope,' Murphy said, 'and it's a really hard road and I feel for you.' He suggested Newsom watch the show over Labor Day weekend. 'I'm going to see if I made the right decision.' Newsom replied.
Los Angeles Times
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Los Angeles Times
Perry Farrell, Dave Navarro exchange wildly differing lawsuits over imploded Jane's Addiction tour
The members of Jane's Addiction were flinging civil lawsuits at one another Wednesday like it was nothing shocking, with each side registering arguments about a physical altercation that started onstage in 2024 and took the tour — and the reunited band — down with it. First, Dave Navarro, Eric Avery and Stephen Perkins sued Perry Farrell in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and more. Hours later, Farrell and his wife, Etty Lau Farrell, sued the other three, alleging almost the same offenses but with a very different backstory. As Farrell says in his lawsuit, the history of Jane's Addiction has been peppered with 'well-documented' antagonism between its 'original' members, who settled in as the lineup in 1986, a year after the band was founded. That antagonism is clear in both complaints, which were reviewed by The Times. The lawsuit listing Navarro as the first plaintiff says Farrell was struggling during the tour. He 'regularly appeared onstage in an advanced state of intoxication,' 'ruthlessly assaulted' the guitarist onstage in Boston in September 2024, then continued his 'unhinged barrage of punches' backstage, it says. 'The Attack, which was virally viewed by millions of people worldwide, was brutal and unprovoked. It quickly forced the termination of the show and eventually the entire Tour,' the complaint says. Farrell, meanwhile, says in his lawsuit that the other members had spent years 'bullying' and 'trying to undermine' him by turning up the volume on their instruments so loud that he was forced to crank his in-ear monitors to dangerous levels to hear his own voice. During the tour, the three 'decided that Jane's Addiction's decades of success should be jettisoned' in pursuit of that harassment campaign, the complaint says. In Boston, the singer's lawsuit says, 'Farrell became angry that Navarro, playing at top volume, was bullying him yet again and callously refused to lower his volume despite his repeated requests. As a result of Navarro's loud playing, which was excruciating and dangerous to Farrell, during the song 'Ocean Size,' Farrell reacted by body-checking Navarro. Farrell did not throw any punches, but simply wanted to alert Navarro that he had to stop playing so loud.' The body check led to a sort of shoving match until Navarro and Farrell were separated by a guitar technician, the lawsuit alleges. That break allowed Avery 'to put Farrell in a headlock and begin punching him repeatedly in the kidneys and stomach while Farrell was unable to defend himself,' Farrell's complaint says. Navarro was painted as the aggressor toward Farrell and his wife backstage and was quoted in the document as shouting, 'I'll never work with you again.' Days after the altercation, Navarro, Avery and Perkins said in a statement posted on Navarro's social media that 'due to a continuing pattern of behavior and the mental health difficulties of our singer Perry Farrell, we have come to the conclusion that we have no choice but to discontinue the current US tour. Our concern for his personal health and safety as well as our own has left us no alternative. We hope that he will find the help he needs.' Farrell's lawsuit calls that statement libelous, but he is not suing for defamation or libel. He blames the other three band members for unilaterally deciding to end the tour. 'Shockingly, it has also become apparent that in addition to trying to seize the media narrative about the unfortunate events of September 13, 2024, Defendants made their false, malicious and defamatory statements about Perry Farrell in a disingenuous effort to secure insurance coverage for the consequences of their ill-conceived and unlawful cancellation of the tour,' Farrell's lawsuit says. The lawsuit from the other three says they had a 'majority rules' system of decision-making in place for the tour because of previous problems with Farrell making decisions on his own. 'With a series of swift blows,' the document says, Farrell 'single-handedly destroyed the name, reputation, trademark, and viability of the Band and those who built it.' 'Ironically, it was Perry who convinced the original members to reunite for the Tour,' Navarro's lawsuit says. 'Even Navarro agreed to join, as he continued to fight long-term COVID-19 complications' while receiving $25,000 a month from a disability insurance policy. Navarro cut off those benefits, which the suit says could have continued for many months, to get the band back together and tour. 'Yet Perry was the only one who did not perform to the standards to which fans were accustomed,' the complaint says, alleging Perry 'struggled night to night' and appeared to be intoxicated, forgot lyrics, lost his place in familiar songs and mumbled rants as he drank from a wine bottle onstage. While the band's performance was lauded by music media, it says, Farrell's was 'widely panned.' 'If there is a question about what to believe, you can believe the video we've all watched,' attorney Christopher Frost, who is representing Navarro and the others, said in a statement to The Times. 'You can believe Etty Farrell's contemporaneous Instagram posts stating: 'Perry was clearly the aggressor, I'm not arguing that point at all… [H]e has been struggling mentally for quite some time…' You can believe Perry himself when he apologized to the Band: 'I apologize to my bandmates, especially Dave Navarro, fans, family and friends for my actions during Friday's show. Unfortunately, my breaking point resulted in inexcusable behavior.' [The] complaint from Perry, including his account of events backstage after the September 13 show, is revisionist history. It won't stand.' Representatives for Farrell did not respond to The Times' request for comment. Both lawsuits seek jury trials with damages to be determined.
Miami Herald
25-06-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
In landmark decision, judge rules California FAIR Plan's smoke-damage policy illegal
In a landmark decision, a Los Angeles judge ruled that California's home insurer of last resort is violating state law by how it treats smoke-damage claims - a policy that homeowners have long complained shortchanges them, including, most recently, victims of the Jan. 7 firestorms. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stuart Rice on Tuesday said that the California FAIR Plan Assn's policy violates the insurance code because it provides less coverage than what is required by the state's Standard Form Fire Insurance Policy, which provides coverage for all "loss by fire" damages without making any distinction for smoke damage. Since 2017, the plan has required that fire claims must result in "direct physical loss" as defined by "permanent physical changes" to a property, which owners allege has made it more difficult to be compensated for smoke damage. The plan issued a notice to its customers that year that said the new definition of direct physical loss "will result in the denial of claims that might have been paid under prior policy wording," Rice noted in his decision, in a case brought by a former Mono County property owner. "This notice seems to admit that the CFP Policy is less favorable to insureds than the Standard Form Policy," the judge wrote, in declaring the policy illegal. Hilary McLean, a spokesperson for the plan, said it did not have an immediate comment on the ruling. Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, which represents major property and casualty insurers, said the ruling could lead to untenable increases in costs for the plan. "If the case stands for the proposition that the FAIR Plan needs to pay for very expensive lab testing in order to deny a smoke claim, then we will all suffer," Frazier said. "That would dramatically increase claims expenses, which would, without doubt, lead to rate increase needs for the FAIR Plan." The FAIR Plan's handling of smoke-damage claims has angered homeowners who say that instead of being promptly offered industrial hygienic testing for toxic substances and professional cleaning services - even after homes were infiltrated by soot, ash and other fire debris - they were told to try to clean up their properties and given low-ball offers to close their claims. The decision could have broad implications given the fast growth of the FAIR Plan, which is based in Los Angeles and operated by the state's licensed home insurers. Long a minor player in homeowners market, it has seen its rolls skyrocket in the last several years as insurers have pulled out of California's home insurance market, citing a growing risk from climate change, resulting in a series of catastrophic fires. The plan covered less than a quarter-million California homeowners in 2021, but as of March its residential enrollment had reached 556,000. The number of homes on the plan in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones rose nearly 50% last year to 28,440, according to a Times analysis. "This is a complete game changer," said attorney Dylan Schaffer, who represents the plaintiff in the case. He said this is the first time a judge has ruled the plan's smoke-damage policy illegal and it could ultimately result in the FAIR Plan changing its policy. "This decision clearly says you can't not pay for these claims. You can't have a policy that doesn't provide coverage for this kind of damage." Rice also struck down the plan's requirement that smoke damage must be something perceptible rather than detected by laboratory testing. But Schaffer said the plan had already abandoned that provision of its policy since June 2024 after a state Supreme Court ruling in another insurance case. Plaintiff Jay Aliff sued in 2021 after his river-front cabin south of Lake Tahoe was damaged by the Mountain View fire in November 2020. The blaze damaged the roof and broke windows, allowing soot and ash to infiltrate the interior. However, the plan only agreed to pay $2,724.03 after subtracting depreciation and his deductible, even though Aliff claims the on-site adjuster estimated the damage at $7,034, according to his lawsuit. Aliff has since sold the property. The plan amended its fire dwelling policy in 2012, when it added language that said smoke damage must be "visible to the unaided human eye" or capable of being "detected by the unaided nose of an average person" rather than being perceptible "by the subjective senses of (the insured) or by laboratory testing." Schaffer said that provision led to the rejections of more smoke claims, a problem that escalated after 2016. That was when the FAIR Plan sought approval from the state Department of Insurance for a new policy form that changed the definition of "direct physical loss" to require "permanent physical changes." In seeking approval from the department, the plan told regulators that the new policy language might result in a "broadening" of coverage, according to the Aliff lawsuit. But after receiving complaints about how the plan was handling smoke-damage claims, state regulators in 2022 conducted a market conduct examination of the plan's smoke-policy language and claims procedure. The report found that in seeking approval of its new definition of "direct physical loss," the FAIR Plan "omitted relevant facts and misrepresented revised language as providing broad or broader coverage than the policy provided previously." The plan denied its policy was illegal, prompting the department to threaten possible "administrative action." The report also found that from Jan. 1, 2017, through March 18, 2021, the plan violated California's Code of Regulations and Insurance Code 418 times. The violations included issuing fire policies that failed to meet state codes, failing to cover all by fires and failing to "diligently pursue a thorough, fair and objective investigation" of claims, including more than 200 involving smoke damage. Victoria Roach, the plan's president, defended the insurer's handling of smoke-damage claims during an Assembly Insurance Committee hearing this year. She contended that the policy provides adequate coverage, even though it asks policyholders to first try to clean up their own properties. "Smoke or ash in a house is not necessarily covered if it hasn't damaged anything. Now, sometimes smoke, in and of itself, will damage things, right? It'll damage the walls. It'll damage porous surfaces, a lot of times, the carpets, the couches, the mattresses, things like that. If it's beyond repair, we'll cover it if it needs to be repaired," she said. The lawsuit originally sought class action status but that request was rejected by Rice in December. In his most recent decision, the judge also ruled that the FAIR Plan did not violate the state's Unfair Competition Law, because it was not proved that Aliff had actually suffered any economic loss due to the policy. Rice admitted this was an "incongruous" result, but said that was only because it was a high legal hurdle to prove such a matter before trial - and that Aliff may eventually win on this issue at trial. Schaffer said he plans to file additional unfair competition motions with more evidence prior to trial, because a favorable decision on the law would allow him to seek a court injunction forcing the plan to change its smoke-damage policy statewide. That might apply not only to new and outstanding claims, but also to cases closed since 2017, the attorney said. The plan has received thousands of such claims since then, including those from the Jan. 7 fires, he said. Amy Bach, an attorney and executive director of United Policyholders, a San Francisco insurance advocacy group, said the judge's decision was "profound" and would force the FAIR Plan to change how it handles smoke-damage claims aside from any injunction. "You have a court of law telling the FAIR Plan, what we have been telling them, what people have been telling them, what lawyers have been telling them, what the Department of Insurance told them: 'Your language is is illegal. You can't use it, and now you're going to have to make it right.'" The losses suffered by Los Angeles County homeowners have spawned multiple lawsuits against insurers and the plan. Schaffer's Oakland-based firm Kerley Schaffer has filed lawsuits against the plan over its smoke-damage policy dating back to 2017, including proposed class actions in Alameda and Butte counties. Most recently his firm has teamed with Edelson, a large Chicago-based law firm, to represent victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires who have filed multiple lawsuits against the plan over its smoke-damage policy. Other law firms have filed lawsuits over the plan's policies since the Jan. 7 fires. Two lawsuits filed in April accuse hundreds of insurers of colluding to drop policyholders and force them onto the plan, which offers limited policies that typically cost more. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Los Angeles Times
25-06-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
In landmark decision, judge rules California FAIR Plan's smoke-damage policy illegal
In a landmark decision, a Los Angeles judge ruled that California's home insurer of last resort is violating state law by how it treats smoke-damage claims — a policy that homeowners have long complained shortchanges them, including, most recently, victims of the Jan. 7 firestorms. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stuart Rice on Tuesday said that the California FAIR Plan Association's policy violates the insurance code because it provides less coverage than what is required by the state's Standard Form Fire Insurance Policy, which provides coverage for all 'loss by fire' damages without making any distinction for smoke damage. Since 2017, the plan has required that fire claims must result in 'direct physical loss' as defined by 'permanent physical changes' to a property, which owners allege has made it more difficult to be compensated for smoke damage. The plan issued a notice to its customers that year that said the new definition of direct physical loss 'will result in the denial of claims that might have been paid under prior policy wording,' Rice noted in his decision, in a case brought by a former Mono County property owner. 'This notice seems to admit that the CFP Policy is less favorable to insureds than the Standard Form Policy,' the judge wrote, in declaring the policy illegal. Hilary McLean, a spokesperson for the plan, said it did not have an immediate comment on the ruling. Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, which represents major property and casualty insurers, said the ruling would lead to untenable increases in costs for the plan 'If the case stands for the proposition that the FAIR Plan needs to pay for very expensive lab testing in order to deny a smoke claim, then we will all suffer,' Frazier said. 'That would dramatically increase claims expenses, which would, without doubt, lead to rate increase needs for the FAIR Plan.' The FAIR Plan's handling of smoke-damage claims has angered homeowners who say that instead of being promptly offered industrial hygienic testing for toxic substances and professional cleaning services — even after homes were infiltrated by soot, ash and other fire debris — they were told to try to clean up their properties and given lowball offers to close their claims. The decision could have broad implications given the fast growth of the FAIR Plan, which is based in Los Angeles and operated by the state's licensed home insurers. Long a minor player in homeowners market, it has seen its rolls skyrocket in the last several years as insurers have pulled out of California's home insurance market, citing a growing risk from climate change, resulting in a series of catastrophic fires. The plan covered less than a quarter million California homeowners in 2021 but as of March its residential enrollment had reached 556,000. The number of homes on the plan in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones rose nearly 50% last year to 28,440, according to a Times analysis. 'This is a complete game changer,' said attorney Dylan Schaffer, who represents the plaintiff in the case. He said this is the first time a judge has ruled the plan's smoke-damage policy illegal and it could ultimately result in the FAIR Plan changing its policy. 'This decision clearly says you can't not pay for these claims. You can't have a policy that doesn't provide coverage for this kind of damage.' Rice also struck down the plan's requirement that smoke damage must be something perceptible rather than detected by laboratory testing. But Schaffer said the plan had already abandoned that provision of its policy since June 2024 after a state Supreme Court ruling in another insurance case. Plaintiff Jay Aliff sued in 2021 after his river-front cabin south of Lake Tahoe was damaged by the Mountain View fire in November 2020. The blaze damaged the roof and broke windows, allowing soot and ash to infiltrate the interior. However, the plan only agreed to pay $2,724.03 after subtracting depreciation and his deductible, even though Aliff claims the on-site adjuster estimated the damage at $7,034, according to his lawsuit. Aliff has since sold the property. The plan amended its fire dwelling policy in 2012, when it added language that said smoke damage must be 'visible to the unaided human eye' or capable of being 'detected by the unaided nose of an average person' rather than being perceptible 'by the subjective senses of (the insured) or by laboratory testing.' Schaffer said that provision led to the rejections of more smoke claims, a problem that escalated after 2016. That was when the FAIR Plan sought approval from the state Department of Insurance for a new policy form that changed the definition of 'direct physical loss' to require 'permanent physical changes.' In seeking approval from the department, the plan told regulators that the new policy language might result in a 'broadening' of coverage, according to the Aliff lawsuit. But after receiving complaints about how the plan was handling smoke-damage claims, state regulators in 2022 conducted a market conduct examination of the plan's smoke-policy language and claims procedure. The report found that in seeking approval of its new definition of 'direct physical loss,' the FAIR Plan 'omitted relevant facts and misrepresented revised language as providing broad or broader coverage than the policy provided previously.' The plan denied its policy was illegal, prompting the department to threaten possible 'administrative action.' The report also found that from Jan. 1, 2017 through March 18, 2021 the plan violated California's Code of Regulations and Insurance Code 418 times. The violations included issuing fire policies that failed to meet state codes, failing to cover all by fires and failing to 'diligently pursue a thorough, fair and objective investigation' of claims, including more than 200 involving smoke damage. Victoria Roach, the plan's president, defended the insurer's handling of smoke-damage claims during an Assembly Insurance Committee hearing this year. She contended that the policy provides adequate coverage, even though it asks policyholders to first try to clean up their own properties. 'Smoke or ash in a house is not necessarily covered if it hasn't damaged anything. Now, sometimes smoke, in and of itself, will damage things, right? It'll damage the walls. It'll damage porous surfaces, a lot of times, the carpets, the couches, the mattresses, things like that. If it's beyond repair, we'll cover it if it needs to be repaired,' she said. The lawsuit originally sought class action status but that request was rejected by Rice in December. In his most recent decision, the judge also ruled that the FAIR Plan did not violate the state's Unfair Competition Law, because it was not proven that Aliff had actually suffered any economic loss due to the policy. Rice admitted this was an 'incongruous' result, but said that was only because it was a high legal hurdle to prove such a matter before trial — and that Aliff may eventually win on this issue at trial. Schaffer said he plans to file additional unfair competition motions with more evidence prior to trial, because a favorable decision on the law would allow him to seek a court injunction forcing the plan to change its smoke-damage policy statewide. That might apply not only to new and outstanding claims, but also to cases closed since 2017, the attorney said. The plan has received thousands of such claims since then, including those from the Jan. 7 fires, he said. Amy Bach, an attorney and executive director of United Policyholders, a San Francisco insurance advocacy group, said the judge's decision was 'profound' and would force the FAIR Plan to change how it handles smoke damage claims aside from any injunction. 'You have a court of law telling the FAIR Plan, what we have been telling them, what people have been telling them, what lawyers have been telling them, what the Department of Insurance told told them: 'Your language is is illegal. You can't use it, and now you're going to have to make it right.'' The losses suffered by Los Angeles County homeowners have spawned multiple lawsuits against insurers and the plan. Schaffer's Oakland-based firm Kerley Schaffer has filed lawsuits against the plan over its smoke damage policy dating back to 2017, including proposed class actions in Alameda and Butte counties. Most recently his firm has teamed with Edelson, a large Chicago-based law firm, to represent victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires who have filed multiple lawsuits against the plan over its smoke damage policy. Other law firms have filed lawsuits over the plan's policies since the Jan. 7 fires. Two lawsuits filed in April accuse hundreds of insurers of colluding to drop policyholders and force them onto the plan, which offers limited policies that typically cost more.
7NEWS
18-06-2025
- Entertainment
- 7NEWS
Hollywood producer Tyler Perry accused of sexual harassment in $US260 million lawsuit
An actor and screenwriter has accused Tyler Perry of sexual harassment, alleging in a lawsuit that the media mogul repeatedly made unwanted advances and sought to cover up an assault with an offer to develop a show. The 46-page complaint, which was filed last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court and seeks punitive damages totalling $US260 million ($A400 million), compares the allegations to those against other well-known entertainment industry figures accused of sexual misconduct. 'Mr. Perry's success has led him to believe that money and influence can get him whatever he wants,' the complaint says. 'Mr. Perry sought the one thing his wealth and influence could not purchase — a sexual relationship with a man who would remain silent.' In a statement, a lawyer for Perry accused the plaintiff, Derek Dixon, of trying to get close to Perry 'for what now appears to be nothing more than setting up a scam. But Tyler will not be shaken down and we are confident these fabricated claims of harassment will fail.' According to the lawsuit, Perry offered Dixon — who at the time worked for an events company — his first acting role in 2019. A few months later, he invited Dixon to his home in Georgia and served him several drinks before he told him to stay in his guest room, according to the suit. Perry suddenly appeared in Dixon's bed and began groping him, according to the suit. 'Dixon kept informing Perry that he was not into sex in order to keep Perry at bay while at the same time not insulting the person who was dangling his career in front of him,' the suit says. Perry continued to text Dixon about his sex life, according to the suit, which says that the more Dixon ignored Perry the more aggressive he became. After Dixon quit his job and took a role on Perry's show, The Oval, the suit says, Perry would ask about his sexual preferences, go on sexually explicit rants and call or text him almost daily, treating him as his on-call 'pet.' Dixon's character in The Oval was scripted to be shot at the end of the season, but according to the suit, Perry indicated that he might survive the shooting and appear in future seasons if Dixon did a 'good job'. 'Dixon immediately understood his job security depended on his 'relationship' with Perry,' according to the suit, which adds that Perry warned Dixon not to discuss any of their conversations with castmates or tell them about their friendship. Rights to script The suit accuses Perry of groping Dixon twice in 2020, including during a cast trip to the Bahamas. In 2021, at Perry's house, Perry pulled down Dixon's underwear and 'began to vigorously grab, grope, and play with Dixon's buttocks in a sexual manner,' the suit says, adding, 'Dixon was naked, stunned and seized by tremendous fear.' After the alleged assault, the suit says, one of Perry's lawyers told Dixon that 'Christmas came early' because he had done a good job on The Oval. He was given a raise for the following season, according to the suit, and Perry wanted to buy the rights to shoot a pilot for a script Dixon had written, called Losing It. The suit says Dixon struggled with the decision about whether he should go public with allegations of sexual assault or accept Perry's money. He ultimately 'bowed to the pressure', the suit says, and sought to advance his career. While Perry purchased the rights to the script and filmed it, the suit says, he 'had no intention of ever producing Losing It. Perry never made any effort to sell the show or shop it. Perry was only using the show as a quid pro quo to Dixon, holding its production over Dixon's head like the sword of Damocles.' The show was not developed, according to the suit, and Perry later offered Dixon a position as a writer on one of his shows. Dixon turned him down and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it says. The status of that complaint was not immediately clear.
