[Blind Gossip] A famous actor from California is about to have a very unpleasant run-in with the justice system. A woman is filing a lawsuit against him for giving her herpes!
The two met when the actor was living in Michigan while filming an upcoming blockbuster. He rented a house in a suburb of Detroit, and the woman claims that they had a series of encounters there that led to her contracting Herpes Simplex Virus II. She claims that he was the only man with whom she had relations at that time, and that she has not been intimate with anyone else since.
You don’t have to be a superhero to figure out which film we’re talking about.
Needless to say, the actor will not want this lawsuit to be a topic of discussion on the red carpet when the film is released in early 2016.
Similar: The HIV Actor’s Partners
[Optional] Do you think the actor will fight the lawsuit or settle?
Please Note: This is a Blind Gossip EXCLUSIVE. You must credit Blind Gossip by name AND provide a working link to our website. It’s easiest to just use the social media links below. Thanks!
The lawsuit has just been filed! You can read a copy of it below.
A few notes to add to our original blind item:
- The plaintiff’s pseudonym is Jane Doe, and the defendant’s pseudonym is Richard Roe.
- The sexual encounters took place in July 2015.
- Jane Doe and Richard Roe had repeated sexual encounters during that time.
- Jane Doe contracted Herpes Simplex Virus II from Richard Roe during those encounters.
- The encounters took place at Richard Roe’s house in Royal Oak, Michigan. Royal Oak is a suburb of Detroit.
- Richard Roe is simply identified as a celebrity who lives in California who was residing in a house in Royal Oak at the time. Jane Doe is currently in New York.
- Jane Doe’s infection is permanent and irreversible.
- Jane Doe is asking for a minimum of $75,000 in damages.
Jane Doe just dropped the lawsuit!
DETROIT – A woman who filed a lawsuit claiming she was infected with genital herpes after repeated sexual encounters with a “celebrity” while he was living in Royal Oak this summer has dropped it.
The lawsuit was filed Monday and sought $75,000 in damages because an unnamed celebrity, who is from California, was negligent in transmitting the herpes simplex virus II to the woman – who is now living in New York.
The lawsuit said the two had sexual encounters during July, “primarily at his residence in Royal Oak.”
The woman said she did not, and has not, had sexual encounters with anyone other than the celebrity since July. But on Tuesday, the woman dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, which means it it could be returned to court.
This is quite the interesting turn of events! It could mean a lot… or it could mean nothing.
This lawsuit was dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. Lawsuits can be dismissed “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”
Generally, dismissal WITH prejudice means that the dismissal is final, and that the party can’t/won’t refile the case.
Dismissal WITHOUT prejudice means that the party has the option to refile. They may have sought the dismissal because there was a problem with the initial filing (e.g. a procedural error or a wrong date) and they intend to correct the error and file again.
So, Blinders, what do you think? Do you think that Jane Doe received some sort of payoff to have the case dismissed without prejudice (and may dismiss it WITH prejudice once the payment is complete)? Or do you think that there was just an error with the initial filing and she will file again?