Lawsuit alleges that an unnamed celebrity gave woman herpes in Royal Oak in July

**artds** · December-01-15, 10:55 AM

The lawsuit alleges that the defendant is a resident of California, that "the plaintiff had repeated sexual encounters with the defendant in July, primarily at his residence in Royal Oak," and that "this complaint is brought anonymously due to the social stigma attached to the damages as well as the celebrity of the defendant,"

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...-oak/76577204/

**Dan Wesson** · December-01-15, 12:29 PM

Hmmmmmm...

Batman? Superman?

**Honky Tonk** · December-01-15, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

Hmmmmmm...

Batman? Superman?

Trump?????

**Wesley Mouch** · December-01-15, 01:49 PM

Don't herpes victims have the right to sexual relations? How can you discriminate against them?

**Honky Tonk** · December-01-15, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Don't herpes victims have the right to sexual relations? How can you discriminate against them?

Brilliant! File a counter-suite!

**mikeg19** · December-01-15, 01:59 PM

Someone look up what films were going on in Michigan in July. Considering funding was cut substantially, shouldn't be too hard to narrow it down to a few.

**Hypestyles** · December-01-15, 03:15 PM

is the defendant formally named in the paperwork? Otherwise, how is the defendant tracked down?

**Baselinepunk** · December-01-15, 03:38 PM

"Don't herpes victims have the right to sexual relations? How can you discriminate against them?"

Are you for real??

The person in question had unprotected sex with the female without disclosing the fact he had a STD!

My goodness, you must have an awful lot of time on your hands . . . .

**davewindsor** · December-01-15, 10:21 PM

I noticed it said, "Her lawsuit also alleges that the defendant "knew or should have known" that he was infected with Herpes Simplex Virus 2."

Scratching my head. They're suggesting he didn't know he had herpes? If it's not a provable fact that he had herpes prior to the trists, how does she prove he gave her herpes if her lawsuit claims he "should" have known? Couldn't he say in his defense that it was the other way around and she gave him herpes? Why weren't criminal charges laid? Why the anonymity of the celebrity if it's a fact that a celebrity has herpes? So, if someone has herpes, has a trist with someone and then claims the other party gave them herpes they can go after them for $75K? I guess that's how legal blackmail and extortion works. Settle the case or someone will reveal your name in a lawsuit and damage your celebrity reputation even though they can't prove the allegation. Very unethical IMO that everybody in the case gets to be anonymous.

**Zacha341** · December-01-15, 11:12 PM

LOL! They should do so with like-infected persons... There's so much deceit out there as we can see from the Charlie Sheen situation. Just party on!

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Don't herpes victims have the right to sexual relations? How can you discriminate against them?

**jmarie** · December-01-15, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

Someone look up what films were going on in Michigan in July. Considering funding was cut substantially, shouldn't be too hard to narrow it down to a few.

See, I immediately thought athlete. Especially since it says residence. Makes it sound like a semi-permanent person. Probably another Tiger...

**gumby** · December-02-15, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by jmarie

See, I immediately thought athlete. Especially since it says residence. Makes it sound like a semi-permanent person. Probably another Tiger...

It says he is a resident of California. His residence in Royal Oak could have been a hotel.

**mikeg19** · December-02-15, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by davewindsor

I noticed it said, "Her lawsuit also alleges that the defendant "knew or should have known" that he was infected with Herpes Simplex Virus 2."

Scratching my head. They're suggesting he didn't know he had herpes? If it's not a provable fact that he had herpes prior to the trists, how does she prove he gave her herpes if her lawsuit claims he "should" have known? Couldn't he say in his defense that it was the other way around and she gave him herpes? Why weren't criminal charges laid? Why the anonymity of the celebrity if it's a fact that a celebrity has herpes? So, if someone has herpes, has a trist with someone and then claims the other party gave them herpes they can go after them for $75K? I guess that's how legal blackmail and extortion works. Settle the case or someone will reveal your name in a lawsuit and damage your celebrity reputation even though they can't prove the allegation. Very unethical IMO that everybody in the case gets to be anonymous.

I get it that it's possible this "celebrity" may have contracted the virus, showed no signs of it, gave it to her, and didn't know. Maybe she's unaware that it's possible he contracted the virus from another partner only a short time prior to their Trysts, in which he probably wouldn't be showing any symptoms yet. I guess the only way to prove that he knew he had it was to look through his medical records and see if he's on any meds for it. But I'm not sure if that's even legal to do so.

**Hypestyles** · December-02-15, 09:28 AM

Depending on how much publicity this gets, it might eventually become a Law & Order SVU episode.

**Scottathew** · December-02-15, 09:32 AM

Yawn. I ignore celebrity news, gossip, etc...

**mikeg19** · December-02-15, 09:33 AM

Just did a quick search on this. Per the CDC website: Most individuals infected with HSV-1 or HSV-2 are asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms that go unnoticed or are mistaken for another skin condition. As a result, 87.4% of infected individuals remain unaware of their infection.

So good luck to the chick trying to get cash. Sounds like it'll be tough to prove medically, but the embarrassment of his name coming out might give her a little leverage for a settlement.

**rjlj** · December-02-15, 10:57 AM

Just like you ignored this thread.

Originally Posted by 48307

Yawn. I ignore celebrity news, gossip, etc...

**Scottathew** · December-02-15, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by rjlj

Just like you ignored this thread.

It was a great opportunity to tell people to spend their energy elsewhere.

**gumby** · December-02-15, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by 48307

It was a great opportunity to tell people to spend their energy elsewhere.

Such as judging random people on the internet for being interested in something we aren't. Gotcha.

**Scottathew** · December-03-15, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by gumby

Such as judging random people on the internet for being interested in something we aren't. Gotcha.

Where did I make a judgement of people? I think I missed that part.

Celebrity gossip has little value to me. I greatly enjoy ignoring it, and it enhances my life by giving me time and energy to focus on my friends and family.

I tell people to consider to do the same, but if they choose not to, that's their choice. Just as I would urge people to make proper financial decisions. Just because I tell you that there are advantages to ignoring celebrity gossip doesn't mean that I have cast any kind of judgement on what kind of person you are if you choose not to ignore celebrity gossip.

You're on an internet discussion board, you'll need to grow a little bit thicker skin if you want to participate in the exchanging of ideas.

**jiminnm** · December-03-15, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by mikeg19

I get it that it's possible this "celebrity" may have contracted the virus, showed no signs of it, gave it to her, and didn't know. Maybe she's unaware that it's possible he contracted the virus from another partner only a short time prior to their Trysts, in which he probably wouldn't be showing any symptoms yet. I guess the only way to prove that he knew he had it was to look through his medical records and see if he's on any meds for it. But I'm not sure if that's even legal to do so.

The allegation of known or should have known in this lawsuit is pretty standard in a tort claim. If the plaintiff states only that the defendant knew, then they have to prove he knew. If they claim that he should have known, then that raises the the question of what a reasonable person would have done in the defendant's position. Did he previously have sex with someone known to have the herpes or otherwise put himself into the position [[no pun intended) of contracting it? Did he have symptoms but chose not to be tested? Did he have symptoms but simply ignored them or was ignorant of their meaning when generally available knowledge would have indicated otherwise?

Whether or not his medical records are admissible will depend on a variety of factors, including the specific allegations of the plaintiff made and the specific defenses the defendant raises.

**artds** · December-03-15, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by davewindsor

I noticed it said, "Her lawsuit also alleges that the defendant "knew or should have known" that he was infected with Herpes Simplex Virus 2."

Scratching my head. They're suggesting he didn't know he had herpes?

No. They're arguing that as a legal matter a tort was committed irrespective of whether he had actual knowledge that he had the disease, since he should have had actual knowledge that he had it, and that if he didn't, that was negligence on his part.

**Dan Wesson** · December-03-15, 06:55 PM

Well I guess the whole sordid affair is now moot.

Seems the lawsuit has been dropped.

**Vic01** · December-03-15, 09:20 PM

Secrecy continues to surround a bizarre lawsuit involving an unnamed woman suing an unnamed celebrity for allegedly giving her genital herpes in Royal Oak last summer.
For some unknown reason, the woman from Michigan dropped the lawsuit, one day after filing it in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
In a one-sentence explanation filed Tuesday, the mystery plaintiff wrote that she "voluntarily dismisses this action without prejudice."
Her lawyer, Roseville attorney Cynthia Merry, did not return several calls for comment. A person who answered the phone at her home said "she is not going to comment" and asked that no one call back.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2015...-oak/76693546/

**davewindsor** · December-03-15, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by artds

No. They're arguing that as a legal matter a tort was committed irrespective of whether he had actual knowledge that he had the disease, since he should have had actual knowledge that he had it, and that if he didn't, that was negligence on his part.

You need proof he gave it to her and not the other way around. Where's the proof of this "tort"? You need proof for it to be a legal matter. There's no reference to a registry or prior victims. Nothing. There's no negligence if there's no proof he had it prior or knew he had it prior. Without proof, the only tort here is libel.