The extortion lawsuit filed by Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott might have opened the door for his alleged victim to sue him for sexual assault. It also has sparked a motion to dismiss until the legal concept known as anti-SLAPP.
The anti-SLAPP — i.e., strategic litigation against public participation — laws vary from state to state. In Texas, the Citizens Participation Act potentially provides the defendants in Prescott’s lawsuit (the alleged victim and her lawyers) with a basis for getting the case bounced.
The argument is that the lawsuit should be dismissed because: (1) the sexual assault complaint against Prescott is a public concern, since he is a public figure; and (2) his lawsuit interferes with the alleged victim’s right to petition the government.
From the perspective of the alleged victim and her lawyers, a standard demand letter was sent to Prescott. While the amount requested seems exorbitant on its face ($100 million), a letter from legal counsel informing a potential defendant of an intention to file a lawsuit and/or make a criminal complaint is not normally viewed as extortion.
In this case, the argument is that Prescott is a public figure within the meaning of the Texas Citizens Participation Act, and that the demand letter was a precursor to petitioning the government regarding Prescott’s alleged misconduct.
The document submitted in support of the motion to dismiss points out that the law firm representing Prescott has successfully had a lawsuit against it dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, with one of the firm’s managing members saying, “[O]ur job as lawyers is to do the job, not get sued for it.”
That said, the TCPA isn’t a silver bullet. The case can proceed “if the party bringing the legal action establishes by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question.” Thus, if the presiding judge agrees that the TCPA applies, Prescott’s case may proceed if he can establish a prima facie case as to each essential element of all claims with “clear and specific evidence.”
The paperwork supporting the motion to dismiss argues that Prescott can’t make the required showing. He’ll have a chance to try to do so. The judge will then decide whether the case can continue.
For now, there’s at least a chance that Prescott’s case will be thrown out of court — and that his filing of it will have revived a civil claim for sexual assault that otherwise would have been barred by the statute of limitations.