News surrounding Michael Irvin’s lawsuit against Marriott has slowed down since the case was moved to Arizona.
Although there haven’t been many headlines, there have been a few developments in the case. A lot had to happen in order for the case to move forward.
Summonses were issued. Pro Hace Vice motions were filed.
The plaintiff (Irvin) and defendants came to a collective agreement to keep Jane Doe’s identity confidential.
And after a few answers to his original complaint were received, Michael Irvin ended up filing an amended complaint in late April.
That brings us to where we are now.
Every defendant besides Jane Doe, the woman who accused Michael Irvin of misconduct in February, submitted their answer to his amended complaint by May 1st.
Jane Doe, however, did not have their answer filed until this past Friday. The delay may have been due to concern over the protection of her identity.
May 18th is when the joint stipulation was filed to maintain confidentiality of Jane Doe’s identity. The order was granted later, on May 22nd.
Inside the Star has obtained copies of both Michael Irvin’s amended complaint as well as Jane Doe’s answers. The documents affirmed some of what was previously speculated and also provided a few pieces of new information.
MICHAEL IRVIN’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
In a civil case, either a judge or jury can decide a trial.
Michael Irvin’s case was assigned to the Honorable Katherine Cooper, a judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona.
However, Irvin’s complaint specifies, “Jury Trial Demanded.” This is something that cannot be vetoed by the defendants, so at some point, jury selection will come into play.
THE DEFENDANTS
From Irvin’s amended complaint, we also see a complete list of defendants.
Previously, Irvin’s attorney, Levi McCathern, made a statement referencing “the company that operates this hotel out in Arizona.”
It was presumed that he was referring to PHXHotels, LLC, the Phoenix-based company that owns the Renaissance Phoenix Downtown Hotel.
However, the first two defendants listed in the complaint are:
“Marriott International, Inc., a Delaware corporation” and “Renaissance Hotel Operating Company, a Delaware corporation.”
The other four defendants are as follows:
- Diaeldin Waziry and Jane Doe Waziry, husband and wife
- Diaeldin Waziry is the Renaissance Director of Restaurant Operations
- Tracy Stolz and John Doe Stolz, husband and wife
- Tracy Stoltz is the Renaissance General Manager
- Lee Ann Vinciguerra and John Doe Vinciguerra, husband and wife
- Lee Ann Vinciguerra is the Renaissance Director of Sales and Marketing
- Jane Doe and John Doe, husband and wife
- Jane Doe is the woman who initially accused Michael Irvin of misconduct. Her identity is being kept confidential.
MICHAEL IRVIN’S ALLEGATIONS
Most of Michael Irvin’s allegations align with what was previously publicized. He denies any wrongdoing, misconduct, or inappropriate interactions with Jane Doe.
The complaint states, “Defendants improperly took direct measures to scar Mr. Irvin’s reputation, which had a direct and detrimental effect on his livelihood, business relationships and prospective engagements and caused him humiliation and emotional distress. Defendants accomplished this result through unfair and wrongful means.”
And for those wondering if Irvin would take action against the NFL – there is no indication that that would ever happen.
The complaint alleges that the defendants knew that the NFL would be quick to take action after hearing about the accusations against Irvin. It also claims that the NFL was depending on Marriott and Renaissance to be thorough in their investigation before relaying events or accusations to the NFL.
“Upon further information and belief,” the complaint reads, “Renaissance and Marriott, and not the NFL, possess information bearing on the interaction between Ms. Doe and Mr. Irvin and the falsity of their statements concerning Mr. Irvin.”
DAMAGES PURSUED BY MICHAEL IRVIN
It was previously reported that Michael Irvin sought $100 million in damages. But now, that amount could hypothetically increase.
Michael Irvin’s amended complaint includes four claims for relief. The third and fourth claims are for tortious interference with contracts and business expectancies, respectively.
Both claims ended with similar statements.
From the fourth:
“Defendants’ actions were intentional, aggravated, and committed with an evil mind and intent to cause injury or in reckless and/or deliberate disregard of an unjustifiably substantial risk of significant harm to Mr. Irvin.
Mr. Irvin is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and deter them and others similarly situated from engaging in like conduct in the future.”
Irvin is also seeking both actual and punitive damages in amounts “to be proven at trial.”
Additionally, he seeks “pre- and post-judgment interest on the awarded sums at the highest rate permitted by law.”
Since Irvin is seeking a trial by jury, it will be up to the jury to determine if he will receive compensation for damages and if so, how much.
The public and broadcast appearances Irvin was pulled from as a result of Jane Doe’s allegations were not likely to earn him $100 million.
But if the jury rules in Irvin’s favor, there’s no telling what number they will believe would “deter” entities like Marriott International, Inc. from taking similar actions in the future considering that Marriott is expected to bring in over $22 billion annually.
JANE DOE’S ANSWER
Jane Doe was the last of the defendants to submit their answer to Michael Irvin’s amended complaint. But to those keeping up with this case, her answer is the most relevant.
Although she is one of several defendants, the interaction between Doe and Irvin is the crux of this case.
Typically, in a civil case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
In this case, Michael Irvin as the plaintiff would have to prove that his account of the events and the ways in which he was impacted are more likely than not the realities of the situation.
However, in civil cases, the burden of proof can shift to a defendant if they raise and affirmative defense. Jane Doe’s answer includes 18 affirmative defenses.
Jane Doe’s answer does not included any direct quotes of the comments Michael Irvin was accused of making to her.
It does, however mention that he “said that he would come back to find her again in the next few evenings.”
The inclusion of that specific piece of information suggests to this author that that detail is relevant to the defendant’s claim that she was harassed.
Previous reporting focused on lewd comments reportedly made to Jane Doe. But while Doe’s answer does reference “sexual comments,” it does not emphasize lewdness.
Even amidst the affirmative defenses, Irvin’s comments are hardly mentioned at all.
JANE DOE’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Jane Doe’s affirmative defenses center mostly around the defendant’s right to report her version of events to those in a position to handle the matter.
The second affirmative defense states:
“Although Defendant denies making any defamatory or slanderous statement, and/or giving publicity to any such statement, to the extent necessary to preserve the defense, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are precluded by a common law, qualified, absolute, conditional, or other applicable privilege or immunity, including, but not limited to, the conditional privilege to report perceived acts of sexual harassment.”
Here, not only does Jane Doe’s affirmative defense claim that Doe’s accusations were the truth, it also points out that Jane Doe did not publicize the accusations.
It will be interesting to learn what a jury thinks of that defense since so much of Irvin’s complaint revolves around damages he suffered due to his reputation being ruined once this situation became public knowledge.
The sixth affirmative defense is also interesting since it suggests that damages suffered by Irvin are his own fault.
It states: “Plaintiff’s alleged damages, if any, were caused and/or contributed to by Plaintiff’s own conduct and/or that of non-parties and not the actions or inactions of Defendant.”
The “non-parties” referenced here could mean almost any entity from the NFL which made the decision to pull Irvin from planned broadcasts to media outlets that publicized details of the situation as they unfolded.
It seems that there will be several more developments in this case before a decision is reached. Inside the Star will continue working to keep our readers informed as details are made available.