Julia Misley alleges the Aerosmith singer sexually abused her as a teenager. A review of earlier rulings could change the scope of her lawsuit.
Steven Tyler’s civil sexual assault trial is scheduled to begin on May 3, 2027 in Los Angeles, according to the Los Angeles Superior Court’s case summary for case 22TRCV01604. The new judge is also prepared to reconsider rulings that removed substantial parts of Julia Misley’s lawsuit, Rolling Stone AU/NZ reports.
Misley, formerly Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit in December 2022. Her amended complaint alleges the Aerosmith singer used his status as a rock star to groom, manipulate and sexually abuse her. She alleges the abuse continued over approximately three years. It says they first met after an Aerosmith concert in Portland in 1973, when she was 16 and he was 25. Tyler denies the allegations.
Earlier Ruling Could Face Review
The case was substantially narrowed in April. In an April 28 order, Judge Patricia A. Young denied Tyler’s attempt to have the entire lawsuit resolved in his favour before trial but ruled that the portions of Misley’s claims concerning acts outside California could not proceed.
That is the decision Misley’s lawyers now intend to challenge. According to Rolling Stone’s Nancy Dillon, Judge Lawrence Riff said at the November 9 hearing that he would set aside and reconsider Young’s orders if either side requested it. The review would use arguments already submitted to the court, without allowing new ones.
As Louder reports, Young stepped aside in September after disclosing that she had discussed the lawsuit with another judge who had previously been disqualified from the case. Her departure came shortly before the trial was due to begin.
Tyler’s lawyer David Long-Daniels opposed revisiting the April decision, Rolling Stone AU/NZ reports, arguing there was no evidence Young consulted the disqualified judge about that ruling. The proposed review does not mean the dismissed claims have already been reinstated.
What The Earlier Ruling Means For The Trial
Tyler’s defence has argued that Massachusetts law should govern the relationship, including travel to other states, because the pair primarily lived there and its age of consent was 16.
Young’s April ruling drew a distinction for California, where the age of consent was 18 at the relevant time, citing section 261.5 of the state’s Penal Code. Addressing an alleged 1974 Beverly Hills hotel incident, she rejected Tyler’s argument that Misley’s evidence could not, as a matter of law, support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The order said whether Misley could establish that claim was for the jury to decide, including whether it accepted her testimony as credible.
Misley brought the civil action under California’s Child Victims Act, enacted in 2019 through Assembly Bill 218. The April order explains that the legislation opened a three-year window, ending in December 2022, for otherwise expired childhood sexual assault claims.
According to Rolling Stone AU/NZ, both sides have until November 20 to request review of Young’s orders. Riff expects a hearing in January on the decision excluding the out-of-state claims, which could determine how much of Misley’s lawsuit reaches trial.
MORE IN News
