Law&Crime Sidebar - Tyler Perry Claps Back at Model in 'Money Grab' Sex Assault Lawsuit

Episode Date: March 4, 2026

Tyler Perry is fighting back hard against the $77 million sexual assault lawsuit filed by model Mario Rodriguez. Perry’s legal answer is an explosive denial, branding the suit a "money grab" and claiming Rodriguez "repeatedly preyed on Perry’s generosity" for financial gain. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber analyzes all the legal and factual claims from Perry's defense team.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Do you owe back taxes? Do you have unfiled tax returns? Call Tax Network USA at (866) 981- 4548 or visit https://tnusa.com/lc today. HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Tyler Perry is fighting back against the model accusing him of sexual assault. And a brand new legal filing, Perry responds to this multi-million dollar lawsuit filed against him. And he is arguing to the court, there are multiple reasons why these claims should be tossed out. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. All right, real quick, I got to say it's that time of year again. Tax time, always stressful.

Maybe you owe back taxes. Maybe you have unfiled returns. maybe you pulled money from your 401k, maybe you got hit with an unexpected bill, no matter of the reason. The outcome's the same. Penalties grow, the interest compounds. You could owe again with no plan in place. The IRS, they're not waiting. They could enforce collections through wage garnishments or property seizures, file without your consent. But with over 15 years in business, Tax Network USA has seen it all and resolved over $1 billion in debt. No matter the amount, they help taxpayers get back on track. And they can do the same for you. But you've got to call right now. They're offering a free investigation call with the IRS.

They'll put a clear plan in place for you. So don't wait for another IRS letter. Call 866-98-9-8-1-45-48 or visit TNUSA.com slash LC or click the link below. Well, you have this Tyler Perry lawsuit that is heating up once again. The actor-director is responding to a reported $77 million lawsuit that was filed against him back in December of last year out in California state court. In his legal answer to the complaint, and I'm going to get into what that. means in a minute. It's very, very specific, very, very particular. I will tell you what he's arguing, okay? But first, I got to set the stage. You have this model actor named Mario Rodriguez

who apparently had a small part in Tyler Perry's 2016 film. Boo, a Medea Halloween. Sued Tyler Perry. Sued him for sexual assault, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent retention. And it doesn't just name Tyler Perry. This lawsuit also targets his production company and Lionsgate. This is the studio that distributes his films and basically accusing them of knowing about his alleged inappropriate behavior and enabling it. So what are the key allegations? Well, Rodriguez claims that Perry used the promise of roles in a Hollywood career to groom him, to make sexual advances, to touch him, to sexually abuse him. And the suit describes this alleged pattern of isolating him and prying into his childhood trauma and escalating

physical contact and explicit propositions. Basically, Rodriguez claims that Perry wanted to meet him to talk about offering an acting role in his production, allegedly saying at one point, you know, Mario, I'm not a bad person to know and have in your corner, but in reality, Rodriguez claims, he alleges that this was all a ruse because what really Perry wanted to do, according to him, was sexually abuse him. Talked about a personal interest, a personal attraction. And he highlights how a lot of this happened at Perry's home when he would visit his home. And the filmmaker would ask him personal questions. Alleged this happened at one point. Quote, Mr. Perry told him, you have a lot of trauma in you. Believe it or not, we have a lot in

common. Mr. Perry told Mr. Rodriguez to stand up and said, come here, man, let me hug you. Mr. Perry hugged Mr. Rodriguez and said, it's not your fault. In the moment, Mr. Rodriguez, could not help but feel that Mr. Perry was trying to reenact the famous scene between Matt Damon and Robin Williams from the acclaimed 1997 movie Goodwill Hunting. Now, Rodriguez allegedly claims that these encounters with Perry turn physically invasive. Allegations of Perry rubbing his shoulders, rubbing his chest while making comments, suggestive comments, even rubbing his inner thigh. And when Rodriguez apparently became uncomfortable, according to Rodriguez,

as Perry was persistent, saying, just relax. I promise I'm a good guy to know and have in your corner. You just need to relax and stop being so tense. Man, if you would just come, I would take care of you for the rest of your life and you wouldn't have to worry about anything. And I know you'll come around. He also alleged that Perry would manipulate Rodriguez's financial situation, allegedly saying, if you just given to me, I would take care of you. You would never have to worry about anything again. Perry also allegedly shared that he himself was, quote, sexually molested as a kid. And then he used this to try to manipulate or groom Rodriguez. And the complaint argues that he used that shared trauma as a tactic to build trust before making more advances.

And this is when Rodriguez claims that Perry would sexually assault him, like allegedly grabbing his leg right by his private area, allegedly saying it's all right. When Rodriguez kept refusing the alleged advances, he claims the rolls dried up. The suit states plainly, because Mr. Rodriguez continually rejected Mr. Perry's sexual advances and assaults, Mr. Perry never hired him for Medea's Halloween, too, despite all their conversations for new roles for Rodriguez. Here's another key incident alleged in the complaint happened in November 2018, according to Rodriguez, that this happened at Perry's house, quote, Mr. Perry followed Mr. Rodriguez to the kitchen, then Mr. Perry tightly hugged Mr. Rodriguez

and repeatedly told him to hold on while Mr. Perry tried to unbuckle Mr. Rodriguez's pants. The complaint states that after Perry allegedly grabbed Rodriguez in the genital area, Rodriguez allegedly said no, struggled to get free, and that is when, according to Rodriguez, Perry tried to pay him off by giving him $5,000. And he alleges another unwanted advance, too, where Perry tried to allegedly pay him off again. But then there are the text messages that are embedded in the complaint, okay? This is really key to this lawsuit, and a little bit later on when we talk about Perry's defense, keep in mind what that defense is given these messages.

I think he's doing something very specific here. So, for example, the messages that are in the complaint, you have one that says allegedly from Perry to Rodriguez, I haven't heard from you. When Rodriguez seemingly apologized, Perry responded, I deserve a text at least once a month. There was also alleged texts like, good night, F off, I wanted to give you so much S.

You never text unless something is going on. A text saying, no, you're busy, just saying, highs, what all my friends do, and in the end, he claims he never got additional work from Tyler Perry. So the lawsuit claims that Rodriguez decided to come forward in 2025 after learning of a similar lawsuit that was filed by actor Derek Dixon. This is something that we covered on sidebar as well. So Dixon filed a reported $260 million lawsuit in California accusing Tyler Perry of quid pro quo sexual harassment and assault. Now Perry's legal team fought back hard, calling it a failed money grab. and by the way, Dixon and Rodriguez reportedly shared the same attorney, apparently.

And shortly after Mario Rodriguez's lawsuit became public, Rodriguez posted a video addressing his choice to speak out. Listen to what he said. This is part of it. Hello, everyone. Just checking in with you guys about the news that I mentioned a couple days ago. I wanted to talk to you guys a little bit about sexual assault and harassment. and why the people stay silent. For a long time, guys, I didn't want to say anything. And I wanted to tell you guys why I didn't want to say anything.

But when it happened to me, I felt ashamed. I was scared because of the judgment and the questions that people were going to start asking. Almost like they were going to blame me for just being there. while I felt all of that guys, when a very big director, very seriously powerful person that everybody knows, invited me over his house to talk about roles and upcoming things that he was writing. I was telling myself, like, man, like all of my dreams are coming true right now,

like my opportunities at my front door right now. So many, so much excitement going through me on my body. And then, guys, it happens. You know, my boundaries were crossed. You feel like this person feels like they got power over you because of the, because of the situation and the opportunity that presented itself in front of you. And then you're sure and how fear can somewhat keep you quiet and keep you silent. Well, I stayed quiet for much too long.

And I just want to say I'm really sorry, man, because if I would have spoken up sooner, I could have saved somebody that this probably happened to after me. I just want to say sorry for that, whoever that may be. It could have stopped with me if I would have said something. But I do apologize. And I'm speaking up now and getting it out there and talking about it most importantly, then so be it. And I just want to apologize once again, guys, because I'm sorry I can't really talk about more than what I've talked about right now. But I will be giving you guys an update very soon about the whole situation that happened in detail.

So stay tuned. And thank you guys for hearing me out. I appreciate it. Okay. So with all that in mind, now let's get to Perry's legal response. The answer. Now, in a lawsuit where the person's suing lays out all the alleged facts and all the claims, the causes of action against the person that they're suing, the answer is a.

formal legal response where the defendant either admits or denies information, certain points in the complaint, and also lays out the affirmative defenses, meaning, hey, if I can prove something, there is no way the plaintiff can win. I'm going to talk a little bit more about the affirmative defenses, but before I do, got to start with this really explosive preliminary statement that's in the answer. Quote, plaintiff's complaint is a $77 million money grab. Plaintiff Favit a story based on a decade worth of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outlandish claims that have no basis in fact or law and no merit. Plaintiff is manipulating the judicial system in a last ditch effort to shake down Perry to further fund his profligate lifestyle after years of seeking

out Perry for money. After being cast in a very minor role in a single Perry film a decade ago, Plaintiff repeatedly turned to Perry as his personal piggy bank, begging for financial assistance for his car, apartment, medical services, and unpaid bills. All the while, plaintiff would press for invites to spend time with Perry at his home on trips, events, and fancy dinners. Desperate for money, Rodriguez repeatedly preyed on Perry's generosity with a fain friendship until Perry finally stopped giving in to plaintiff's exploitations in 2025. When plaintiffs repeated requests for more financial assistance were met with silence, angry at the loss of his golden goose, plaintiffs spun a false tale that the two had a non-consensual relationship twisting the true reason for the payments to ignite a media firestorm, all to fuel his final money grab and thrust him into the spotlight.

As evidence of his intent to use this bogus complaint as a vehicle to con his way to millions, Plaintiff filed against a fraudulently joined defendant, Lionsgate, who has no employment relationship with Perry or plaintiff and no knowledge of the misconduct he alleges occurred with the sole purpose of destroying complete diversity. Defendants have filed a notice of removal simultaneous with this answer. That might be a reference, by the way, to diversity jurisdiction, which is a way for a federal court to hear a case. We're going to talk about that a little bit more.

But now I want to go to the answer, okay? because defendants have filed this answer. Now, Perry vehemently denies plaintiffs' misrepresentations and distortions of fact and sets forth a general denial and affirmative defenses to the meritless allegations in the complaint below. So, completely different narrative than the allegations in the complaint, right? First thing I had to wonder is whether or not Tyler Perry has other text messages, other communications, maybe witnesses to show this, to show what he claims. is Rodriguez making this up, that Rodriguez was kind of leaching off of him.

Interesting to think about. Now, from here, the answer, this formal document, does what we have seen so many times. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Perry denies both generally and specifically each and every allegation matter or fact contain in plaintiff's complaint and each and every cause of action therein. And by the way, this is interesting too. Perry denies that Rodriguez suffered any injury or damage or loss for purposes of damages, right? Money payout.

I mean, Rodriguez in this suit claims physical sickness, anxiety, body pains, PTSD, harm to his reputation, emotional distress. Perry is denying that. And more specifically, you'll see how he denies it. We'll get to that. So now we're at the point where Perry lays out his affirmative defenses to the claims, why this case should not go forward. First up, you see this one a lot of times in almost every answer, almost every case, failure to state a cause of action.

Basically it means even if you take everything in the complaint is true, there is no viable claim here. There's no viable cause of action that Rodriguez hasn't laid out enough to support a battery claim or assault claim or intentional infliction of emotional distress claim or negligent retention claim, that he hasn't met the legal requirements. Second, affirmative defense, lack of injury or damages. So this is similar to what I said before, but Perry is making the argument that Rodriguez didn't suffer anything by any of the alleged acts, whether or not they're even attributable

to Tyler Perry, that Tyler Perry is not liable here. Now, that's an interesting legal angle. Sometimes you see that in a causation analysis, which, by the way, we'll talk a little bit more about. But to give you an example, you could say, sure, the evidence proves that a person suing does suffer from PTSD. But the counter argument is you're not the reason for it. You didn't cause it. It could be from something else, X, Y, and Z. They didn't prove that you're the cause of it.

So just something to keep in mind here. The third affirmative defense, attorney's fees. Now, I have to say this one is a little different because Perry claims, again, the complaint is frivolous, and now he has to go out and get attorneys and pay to fight this. And he basically makes the argument that he should be reimbursed for the costs. Now, while that's not unusual, while you see that in many lawsuits, I personally haven't seen that laid out typically as an affirmative defense in that category. Usually affirmative defenses are like failure to state a claim or there's a statute of limitations that it's time barred.

Again, taking everything is true. This case just can't proceed under the law. Lack of standing, meaning you don't have a right. to sue. But look, maybe under California law, it's different and you have to put it in there. Not entirely sure. Maybe in the comments somebody can address that. Fourth, you have failure to state facts sufficient to recover punitive damages. Okay, so basically Tyler Perry is arguing that Rodriguez didn't properly lay out enough facts to support awarding punitive damages. These can be costly. You're talking about punishing a defendant, punishment damages,

because he makes the argument that Rodriguez didn't show that Perry allegedly acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, which would be necessary. Again, even assuming everything in there is true. Now, I do wonder if the judge here will allow Rodriguez to amend his complaint, should the court entertain this, agree with Tyler Perry, but we'll see. The fifth affirmative defense is consent. Now, this is very, very interesting. It reads, quote,

While denying the allegations in the complaint regarding alleged contact, the complaint in each cause of action alleged therein is barred in whole or in part because plaintiff consented to any contact by Perry. Kind of covering basis here. I was wondering about this when I first covered the case because given the text messages, and I know we live in an AI day and age, things can be replicated, manufactured. I don't see any kind of allegation here about that. I think it might kind of tough to show that.

But also, it's very hard, typically speaking, to say you didn't send that message or it's fake, okay? So how do you explain these messages? Would it be hard to deny Perry's alleged interest in or apparent relationship with Rodriguez? Again, it's an allegation. Perry, you know, he's reserving his rights here. He's not saying, yes, I admit to anything. Yes, I admit to contact. He's not saying that.

Allow the plaintiff here, Rodriguez, to prove that. He's got the burden. but it is interesting because he's kind of covering his bases. Would he have to say, okay, yeah, there was personal contact of some sort, but it was all consensual. So instead of a flat out denial, you know, instead of saying, I never invited him to my house, I never touched him, all lies, is there an element where it would be, yes, he came over, yes, I touched him, but he was on board with everything. It was consensual.

Interesting to think about. Six, the affirmative defense. failure to mitigate. So another common defense in lawsuits. So basically under the law, sometimes a plaintiff, right, the person suing, has a duty to avoid certain harm. Don't make the situation worse for yourself and expect that you're going to recover more money. You're going to recover more damages. There is a duty to limit your harm. There is a duty to mitigate your damages. A classic example, learned it in law school. You see it in property disputes. If a tenant illegally breaks a lease, right? And a landlord

sues the tenant. A landlord still has a legal duty to try to find a replacement tenant. You can't just deliberately keep that apartment vacant and say, look, I'm losing all this money day in and day out. No, you have a duty to try to mitigate to limit your damages. So basically, Perry here is saying Rodriguez didn't do that. Seventh affirmative defense, proximate alternative causation. Now I talked about this before. It reads, quote, whatever injury

or damage may have been sustained by plaintiff was not proximate caused by any act or omission on the part of Perry. Now, proximate causation, proximate cause is doing something that actually causes the harm. It was foreseeable what you did could cause this harm and what you did played a substantial factor in that harm occurring. Eighth affirmative defense latches. Okay, legal term here. Idea here, let's say Rodriguez does have a valid claim. The problem is, on underlatches, he allegedly waited an unreasonable amount of time before he filed this lawsuit, and that is not fair to Tyler Perry to defense. So it's not that the claims are time barred or that they're too old and they can't be brought. It's that the delay in bringing a lawsuit

is a problem because it's now unfair to the defendant in some way. And if a court entertains this, Rodriguez would seemingly have to explain why he brought this claim now of all times. And look, mentioned it before, maybe it was the Dixon lawsuit, and he felt comfortable coming forward then. Something to think about. Ninth affirmative defense. Conduct, not outrageous. So defendant Perry's alleged conduct does not meet the requisite standard of being so extreme or outrageous as to exceed all bounds of decency. What does this mean?

So this seems to be for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Basically, the alleged conduct didn't rise to the level of that extreme of conduct, to justify that claim because for that specific cause of action, intentional infliction of emotional distress, yes, it can be broad. Yes, it can encompass a lot of behavior, but it has to meet quite a certain high threshold. You're talking about really, really, really bad behavior. Tenth, affirmative defense. No emotional distress. Okay, going back to the same idea, that the plaintiff cannot show any acts or conduct by Perry caused him emotional distress because his allegations of harassment and other misconduct are false and fabric.

located. Pretty self-explanatory there. Right goes to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. 11th affirmative defense, intent. Okay, the complaint in each and every cause of action asserted therein is barred because Perry did not act with the requisite degree of intent or fault. So this goes to the elements of the claims. Obviously, intentional infliction of emotional distress. So if Perry did cause Rodriguez emotional distress, he didn't do it on purpose. He didn't do it deliberately. He didn't do it intentionally. Also goes to these other claims like sexual assault and battery that have specific intent elements, right? reads in the complaint. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously and fraudulently

with the wrongful intention of injuring plaintiff and with an improper and evil motive, rising to the level of malice in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights. It also helps support the punitive damages. 12th affirmative defense waiver. So Perry is arguing that the claims are barred because Rodriguez voluntarily gave up a right or privilege here. Now it's not entirely clear to me how this is applying here, but maybe, I don't know, waiting to file the lawsuit. Usually see that on a contract dispute, right? There's a waiver in there. You assumption of the risk. Thirteenth affirmative defense, unclean hands. So Perry is arguing that the claims are barred because Rodriguez, not an innocent actor here. He's not innocent in this.

That Perry shouldn't have to pay up if, for example, Rodriguez is a bad actor. In terms of bad faith, you kind of heard those allegations from Perry in his preliminary statement. So I think that's where he's going with that. 14th affirmative defense, do care. Now, defendant Perry has at all times exercised due care in regard to any actions, conduct, or other matters alleged in plaintiff's complaint. Now, why say that? Perry basically is making the argument, as far as I can see, that everything I did was on the

up and up. It wasn't negligent. It wasn't wrongful. I followed my duty. 15th affirmative defense. Superseding and or intervening causation. Back to the causation conversation. So here again, Perry is claiming that any harm suffered by Rodriguez was the result of some intervening, some superseding act by somebody else, not him.

Perry isn't liable to Rodriguez. So at the very least, there is shared responsibility over a cause of harm to Rodriguez. And that reduces Perry's legal liability here, that he would only have to pay a proportion of the damages. 16th, affirmative defense. several liability for non-economic damages. Very similar here that under the law, if there is shared responsibility for a wrong, for a harm suffered, the defendants, okay, share that liability in terms of paying out the damages, but in a several capacity, not a joint capacity, meaning each defendant only is liable for the damages in direct proportion to their fault. Not everybody's

paying out a million dollars, but only, let's say, 10%, 25%, because that's how much they were at fault for. 17th, affirmative defense, lack of injury or damages. So defendant Perry denies the plaintiff suffered any injury or damage whatsoever, and further denies any liability to plaintiff for any supposed injury or damage. Pretty self-explanatory there. 18th, affirmative defense. Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages were caused in whole or part by pre-existing conditions

or other contributory or concurrent conditions or factors, including, events that occurred before or after the occurrence that form the basis of the allegations in plaintiff's complaint. So think that comes back into play when you talk about PDSD and emotional distress and mental anguish, again, saying this is in Perry's fault. Something else caused all this. 19th affirmative defense, reservation of rights. Defendant's investigation of the allegations raised in plaintiff's complaint is continuing accordingly. Defendant reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses. It's not waiving anything. Okay. So those, those Those are the affirmative defenses.

And now I just want to move on to one more part in this answer. It's called Statement of Intent to Remove. So Perry and Lionsgate want to move this case out of California state court to federal court. Now that's strategic. Different jurisdiction, maybe a larger pool of judges, maybe a more favorable court, maybe a more favorable forum, maybe a larger jury pool, maybe even a more neutral ground. Perry may be saying that California is not right for him since his primary residence is in Georgia. But you have to meet certain requirements there, like the amount in controversy that you're talking about here exceeds $75,000.

I think you can get that with the damages amount. And you're dealing with citizens of different states. Look, Rodriguez, California, Perry, Georgia. By the way, in the Dixon case, a judge had ordered that that case be moved to Georgia federal court from California, I believe federal court there. So there you go. big response from Tyler Perry. We will see what happens next in this. We're going to continue to follow it here on Sidebar. But that's all we have for you right now. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out, by the way, on NBC's Peacock. We have Sidebar episodes up there too.

If you want to follow me, X Instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.