The woman whose sexual assault lawsuit against Chris Brown was dismissed fired back at his $500 million defamation lawsuit against her, In Touch can exclusively report.
According to court documents obtained by In Touch, the woman, who sued Chris, 35, in 2022, using the pseudonym Jane Doe, for sexual assault, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment, demanded his case against her be tossed out of court.
Chris’ lawsuit was over the documentary Chris Brown: A History of Violence, that aired on Discovery earlier this year.
The defendants in the suit were Warner Bros., which owns Discovery, the producers of the film and the accuser.
In the suit, Chris said he was falsely labeled a “serial rapist and sexual abuser” and he demanded damages for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The entertainer claimed that central to the documentary’s “misleading narrative” was Jane’s “frivolous” lawsuit.
He said that the claims were “determined to be entirely fabricated, leading to the withdrawal of her attorneys and dismissal of the case on August 25, 2022, after a Miami Beach Police detective uncovered text messages sent by [Jane] that exposed her dishonesty.”
He said a Rolling Stone investigative report in 2022 further “discredited” Jane’s claims.
He said despite all of this and Jane having an arrest record, the producers still included her in the documentary.
Chris’ lawyer added, “Mr. Brown has never been found guilty of any sex related crime (rape, sexual battery, sexual assault etc.) but this documentary states in every available fashion that he is a serial rapist and sexual abuser.”
In her new filing, Jane argued that her speech and conduct in “furtherance of her free speech rights involved matters of legitimate concerns to the public, the publication of which is privileged under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Her lawyer argued, “[Chris’] claims against [Jane] are barred, in whole or in part, because to the extent any statement that forms the basis for [Chris’] claims against [Jane] could be interpreted as asserting verifiable facts, those facts are substantially true and not materially false.”
In addition, he said, “[Chris’] claims against [Jane] are barred, in whole or in part, because [Chris] has not suffered harm, injury in fact, or lost money or property as a result of any action or omission by [Jane].”
Jane demanded the suit be tossed and Chris cover her legal fees she racked up defending herself against the claims. As In Touch first reported, the producers and Warner Bros. denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
Their lawyer argued, “[Chris’] claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that any statements and/or alleged implications that form the basis for the claims could be interpreted as asserting verifiable facts, those facts are not materially false and/or are substantially true.”
The lawyer added, “Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because he is a public figure and Defendants did not publish any false statement or implication about him with constitutional actual malice.”
Chris’ lawyer, Levi G. McCathern, II previously told In Touch about the defendant’s motion stating, “Warner Bros.’ statements are nonsense. I informed them that the storyline they were promoting was false. Despite this, they proceeded forward, motivated solely by greed. It is ridiculous to take the position that their actions do not constitute malice.”
