Chris Brown Accuser Files to Dismiss Defamation Lawsuit

Back in January Chris Brown filed a $500 million defamation of character lawsuit against Warner Bros. over the “Chris Brown: A History of Violence” docuseries that was largely based on a lawsuit filed against him that was dismissed [click here if you missed that]. 

Now the woman at the center of the dismissed suit has filed to have Brown's defamation lawsuit tossed out...

From In Touch

The woman whose sixual assault lawsuit against Chris Brown was dismissed fired back at his $500 million defamation lawsuit against her, In Touch can exclusively report.

According to court documents obtained by In Touch, the woman, who sued Chris, 35, in 2022, using the pseudonym Jane Doe, for sexual assault, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment, demanded his case against her be tossed out of court.

In her new filing, Jane argued that her speech and conduct in “furtherance of her free speech rights involved matters of legitimate concerns to the public, the publication of which is privileged under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Her lawyer argued, “[Chris’] claims against [Jane] are barred, in whole or in part, because to the extent any statement that forms the basis for [Chris’] claims against [Jane] could be interpreted as asserting verifiable facts, those facts are substantially true and not materially false.”

In addition, he said, “[Chris’] claims against [Jane] are barred, in whole or in part, because [Chris] has not suffered harm, injury in fact, or lost money or property as a result of any action or omission by [Jane].”

Jane demanded the suit be tossed and Chris cover her legal fees she racked up defending herself against the claims.

Their lawyer argued, “[Chris’] claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that any statements and/or alleged implications that form the basis for the claims could be interpreted as asserting verifiable facts, those facts are not materially false and/or are substantially true.”

The lawyer added, “Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because he is a public figure and Defendants did not publish any false statement or implication about him with constitutional actual malice.”

Chris’ lawyer, Levi G. McCathern, II previously told In Touch about the defendant’s motion stating, “Warner Bros.’ statements are nonsense. I informed them that the storyline they were promoting was false. Despite this, they proceeded forward, motivated solely by greed. It is ridiculous to take the position that their actions do not constitute malice.”