Bradley Steyn complaint filed in the Orange County Superior Court (July 29, 2014)

Doing a search on the Orange County Superior Court site ($1) I found the following case:

Case Id: 30-2014-00736735-CU-CO-CJC
Case Title: BRADLEY STEYN VS. STEVEN PATRICK MORRISSEY
Case Type: CONTRACT - OTHER
Filing Date: 07/29/2014
Category: CIVIL - UNLIMITED

PARTICIPANTS
Name Type Assoc Start Date End Date
2014-15 TOURS DEFENDANT 07/29/2014
BRADLEY STEYN PLAINTIFF 07/29/2014
DAVIDSON & ASSOCIATES, P.L.C. ATTORNEY 07/29/2014
DONALD KNUTSON DEFENDANT 07/29/2014
STEVEN PATRICK MORRISSEY DEFENDANT 07/29/2014

I went ahead and purchased the documents ($37.50) and am taking a look through them now.

UPDATE:

Download here:
Bradley Steyn complaint (569K PDF)



Media coverage:
 
Last edited:

Comments

In California, audio recording someone without their consent is illegal (hence the need for a judge to approve wiretaps) so recordings aren't going to happen. There also may be other witnesses to the statements. Your idea of what's required to get a case to court don't match the stuff that's there already.
Ah, forgot about legal consent for recordings. Maybe it will go to court, but I don't think this guy has a leg to stand on. Maybe recouping some lost wages since he supposedly had important business in South Africa....seems strange he turned down his other job because they "pleaded."
 
Last edited:
K
wrong post, sorry
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting reading.
I'm not too up on American law, but as David is mentioned in it and a jury trial is being 'demanded' (I assume to encourage an out of court settlement) - won't David be subpoenaed?
Well, I wouldn't of believed it until I saw it.
Do the new tour cities have good extradition treaties?
:) FWD
No. It is because jurors tend to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs and award higher damages than judges.
 
No. It is because jurors tend to be more sympathetic to plaintiffs and award higher damages than judges.
That makes sense, but then why mention definitive settlement figures whilst demanding a jury?
My point was more one of time. If it went to a jury trial it would be drawn out and the premise of demanding said when linked to definitive figures quoted to settle appears to suggest a quick way to deal with the problem or a long drawn out way.
Regards,
FWD
 
A
It's not illegal to record someone without their consent if the conversation is with you, legal in all 50 states
 
K
So it looks like it looked before. No hit on David.
Right....and why did david t. post this??

Morrissey said from the beginning that the police had Brandme Selwyn's statement.....

Keep the ball rolling david t. You will make the Sunday funnies yet...
 
That makes sense, but then why mention definitive settlement figures whilst demanding a jury?
My point was more one of time. If it went to a jury trial it would be drawn out and the premise of demanding said when linked to definitive figures quoted to settle appears to suggest a quick way to deal with the problem or a long drawn out way.
Regards,
FWD
I think it is a guideline. Based on the presumed wealth of the defendant. Not to exceed 10% of the defendant's net worth--in California. The punitive damages are not to compensate the plaintiff but rather to punish the defendant and deter him from committing a similar offense in the future. And also to deter others from doing so as well. But the jury has some discretion in deciding the amount. The defendant can appeal of course and also in the case of an outlandish award the judge can reduce the damages with good cause.

If the case if strong and the plaintiff is likely to win, he may chose to not settle out of court. Unless time is an issue and he just wants it over and done with. If Morrissey settles my opinion is that it would essentially be an admission of guilt.
 
In that case, I'm guessing he's going to get exactly he wants in a settlement. $500k to Morrissey must be like $5000 to you or me. [1]What public figure would go through a trial when they could just pay up and have it over with? (More rhetorical questions, I know...)

I've been asking myself WWMD, and I just don't know. [2]It's unfathomable to me that anyone would not want to settle in this situation, but I don't pretend to understand how Morrissey's mind works...
1) Joyce, the principle of the matter, perhaps - http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_051130_01
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/article.pl?sid=10/04/23/1611205

2) Settlement, as a de jure or de facto admission in the public eye that Steyn actually had a legitimate claim. Having said that, while I very much doubt Morrissey put out a hit on David, I do believe a lot of dirty laundry could come out from this such that absent the judge tossing this via demurrer (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) this will settle for far less than the prayer that punitive damages exceed 10 times the lost wages.
 
It's not illegal to record someone without their consent if the conversation is with you, legal in all 50 states
WRONG! Eleven states require the permission of all parties in the conversation before you can legally record. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
 
this lawyer seems pretty sleazy

he has a history of representing people trying to sue celebrities

plus he's been suspended twice
 
1) Joyce, the principle of the matter, perhaps - http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_051130_01
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/article.pl?sid=10/04/23/1611205

2) Settlement, as a de jure or de facto admission in the public eye that Steyn actually had a legitimate claim. Having said that, while I very much doubt Morrissey put out a hit on David, I do believe a lot of dirty laundry could come out from this such that absent the judge tossing this via demurrer (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted) this will settle for far less than the prayer that punitive damages exceed 10 times the lost wages.
Yeah, I guess you're probably right about all this. Good points. I personally would never assume guilt because someone settled in a case (especially someone with a public profile), but knowing how principled Morrissey can be when he feels he's been wronged, it does make sense that he would want to fight it—and even countersue, if that's what we're to infer from his post about Steyn's statement being with the LAPD.

Thanks for helping to clear up a lot of the legal questions I and other have. I am trying really hard not to assume I know anything about the whole process!
 
Last edited:
A
this lawyer seems pretty sleazy

he has a history of representing people trying to sue celebrities

plus he's been suspended twice

And the defendant in this case is a pretty sleazy Boy.

With Old Super Steve-o record in court he better consider an out of court settlement.

I only hope Steyn cleans out old Moz's bank account.
 
If this were to go to trial it's only his word against Morrissey's word unless someone stepped up, which I don't expect would happen.

In addition, California is a right to work state, meaning that the employer does not need "just cause" to terminate. Therefore, they can terminate for any reason or no reason, "just because" would be sufficient.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom