An attorney for Tiger Woods submitted court files Monday that stated Woods’ ex-girlfriend, Erica Herman, is not a sufferer of sexual assault or abuse but is in its place a “jilted ex-girlfriend” who needs to publicly litigate “specious” statements in community court.
The legal professional, J.B. Murray, submitted the files in response to two lawsuits Herman has submitted from the famed golfer and the trust he established for his mansion on the Treasure Coastline of Florida.
Herman sued the trust just after her breakup with Woods in Oct, proclaiming extra than $30 million in damages and stating she experienced an oral tenancy agreement with Woods to keep at the home for about 5 extra many years.
Past week, she also submitted a different lawsuit versus Woods that seeks to release her from her nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with Woods that the couple signed in 2017, near the commencing of their marriage. The lawsuits are similar for the reason that the NDA needs disputes amongst the two to be solved in private arbitration rather of general public court. To get out of this necessity, Herman has invoked federal rules that invalidate NDAs and bypass private arbitration in instances of sexual harassment or assault.
Herman has not manufactured precise allegations of these kinds of misconduct by Woods in her lawsuits. But her lawsuit from Woods implied she would say much more if the courtroom produced her from the NDA. Her lawyer also designed the adhering to reply when filling out a type for her lawsuit against Woods:
“Does this situation require allegations of sexual abuse?” questioned the sort.
“Yes,” answered Herman’s lawyer.
Her lawyer answered the similar concern with a “no” in the other lawsuit in opposition to the believe in submitted in Oct.
“Ms. Herman argues that she are not able to be essential to arbitrate her promises mainly because a new federal statute … supplies that a celebration to an arbitration agreement are not able to be needed to arbitrate a ‘sexual assault dispute’ or a ‘sexual harassment dispute,’ ” said the submitting by Woods’ lawyer.
“Ms. Herman’s posture is utterly meritless. Nevertheless, (the statute) can make it very clear that regardless of whether the federal statute applies and thus bars an arbitration ‘shall be decided by a courtroom, alternatively than an arbitrator.’ Accordingly, Defendant asks this Courtroom for an purchase figuring out that (the statute) does not implement to the statements in this case.”
Murray reported in court paperwork filed last week that Herman did not have an oral or prepared tenancy settlement with Woods and rather was merely a guest at his home.
In her lawsuit in opposition to Woods, Herman is inquiring the court to declare that her NDA is invalid beneath the federal Speak Out Act, which prohibits the judicial enforceability of NDAs in disputes involving sexual assault or harassment. She also wants the court to decide the arbitration clause in the NDA is unenforceable and that “any determination of its applicability in this situation will have to be determined by the Court docket, not by an arbitrator, underneath the federal Ending Compelled Arbitration Of Sexual Assault And Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.”
Murray, who is the lawyer for Woods and the belief, would like to thrust the dispute back again into non-public arbitration and wants the court to identify these types of federal statutes do not implement right here.
“Ms. Herman is a not a target of sexual assault or abuse sought to be shielded by Congress when enacting the statute,” said the document Murray filed Monday. “Rather, Ms. Herman is a jilted ex-girlfriend who needs to publicly litigate specious statements in court, somewhat than honor her commitment to arbitrate disputes in a confidential arbitration proceeding.”
Her NDA with Woods claimed she agreed to arbitrate any dispute with him in thought for the possibility to proceed to expend time with him and to be privy to certain personal and confidential aspects of his own existence and his qualified and small business endeavors
“For far more than six several years, Ms. Herman appreciated the added benefits of her agreement,” Woods’ attorney said in court records Monday. “Now that her relationship with Mr. Woods has ended, nevertheless, she seeks to disregard her obligation to arbitrate disputes with Mr. Woods. Even even worse, she seeks to justify her refusal to arbitrate by earning salacious and insidious implications to federal statutes applying only to promises relating to sexual assault disputes and sexual harassment disputes.”
Abide by reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. E-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org