�
You are here: Home » Adult Webmaster News » Report: Danica Dillon Wants to Drop Lawsuit Against...
Select year   and month 
 
February 02, 2016

Report: Danica Dillon Wants to Drop Lawsuit Against Josh Duggar

PHILADELPHIA—When we last looked at adult star Danica Dillon's lawsuit against former "reality TV" star and religious right icon Josh Duggar, she'd just won the right to continue her lawsuit, with a judge ruling that Duggar's Motion to Dismiss was premature, and a pretrial conference had been set for Jan. 21. Now, less than two weeks after that conference, reports have surfaced that Dillon wants to dismiss her case "without prejudice"—meaning that she wants to keep the door open to possibly refile it at some future point. Dillon's about-face may have something to do with the fact that Duggar's attorney, Jeffrey A. Conrad, had complained in his Motion to Dismiss that Dillon's lawsuit was long on accusations but short on factual evidence of the assaults, which allegedly took place in Philadelphia-area hotels while Dillon was featuring at local strip clubs. Indeed, as a result of the Jan. 21 Pretrial Conference Order, Judge Mark A. Kearney assigned the case to Federal Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley for pretrial matters, and also ordered that, "Counsel for each party shall serve upon counsel for every other party the information referred to in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) necessary to meet their burden of proof by expert report or answer to expert interrogatory no later than March 4, 2016. If the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party, counsel shall serve such rebuttal evidence on counsel for every other party no later than March 22, 2016. Expert depositions, if any, shall be concluded no later than March 28, 2016." What that means, essentially, is that Dillon would be required to provide proof, in the form of documents, expert testimony or other relevant testimony or reports, of the facts of her claimed assaults, so that the lawsuit doesn't devolve into basically a "she said/he said" battle of personal believability—and that is what may be causing problems for Dillon. In fact, she was also required to file an affidavit of facts undisputed by both parties—which turned out to be a two-pager setting forth Dillon's profession as a porn actress, and an agreement that she did indeed dance at the two clubs named in the complaint on the dates named in the complaint—and that's it. Apparently, everything else is in dispute—especially whether Duggar attended Dillon's shows at those clubs, even though he has admitted through his attorney that he did have paid sex with Dillon. More troubling for Dillon would Judge Kearney's Order that, "No later than January 29, 2016, all parties seeking relief of any sort shall provide a detailed written demand, attaching all key documents in support of their demand, upon all parties claimed to be responsible for any claim of relief. All responding parties shall provide a detailed written response on or before February 8, 2016." That portion of the Order would apparently require that Dillon not only address the bases for her claims of injury, which she said has kept her from practicing her profession, but also all the medical and other reports that support those claims. According to the official docket entries for the case, that "detailed written demand" was never filed. That written demand may have been the impetus for Dillon's attorney, Marc J. Frumer, to file his Motion For Permission To Voluntarily Withdraw Complaint Without Prejudice yesterday. In the Motion, Frumer stated that, "after reviewing all materials with Plaintiff on January 29, 2016 [the date the 'detailed written demand' was due], Plaintiff advised counsel to withdraw her lawsuit against Defendant without prejudice." There's just one problem: Dillon is legally unable to withdraw her lawsuit without Duggar's permission, due to the fact that it was originally filed in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and only wound up in federal court because Duggar's attorney had filed a Motion to have the case "removed" (moved) to federal court—and guess what? Duggar won't agree to the dismissal unless Dillon "publishes a statement on all her social media accounts, to remain forever, that the allegations in her complaint are lies, and in addition, Plaintiff must pay Defendant's attorney's fees and costs to date." And even then, Duggar is demanding that the suit be dismissed with prejudice, meaning that Dillon could not refile it at any future time. On Dillon's behalf, Frumer rejected those requirements, citing the fact that Duggar's admission to having had sex with Dillon, plus her inability to pay her own legal fees much less Duggar's as reasons for an unencumbered dismissal. It's unclear whether Judge Kearney or Judge Heffley will rule on the issue, or when that ruling will be made, so check back with AVN for the latest on this high-profile dispute.

 
�
�
�
home | register | log in | add URL | add premium URL | forums | news | advertising | contact | sitemap
copyright © 1998 - 2009 Adult Webmasters Association. All rights reserved.