Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 – 2:09 PM
(CNS) – A judge said Wednesday he wants to study the issues further before possibly requiring out-of-court arbitration for a one-time girlfriend of Charlie Sheen, who claims in a lawsuit that the actor exposed her to HIV.
After hearing arguments on his preliminary ruling, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Randolph Hammock said he will take the case under submission. But he criticized Sheen’s lawyer for trying to “slut shame” the woman.
The woman — identified only as Jane Doe — argues she was hurried into signing an arbitration agreement, which appears to require that an arbitrator and not a judge should decide whether the agreement was one-sided in favor of Sheen.
In his preliminary ruling, the judge said he believes the woman had signed a non-disclosure agreement that included an arbitration clause for settling disputes.
But Christopher Bulone, an attorney for plaintiff Jane Doe — said she was hurried, did not understand what she was agreeing to, and received nothing in exchange for the contract.
Sheen’s lawyer, Stephen Bernard, disagreed, and argued that Jane Doe had received the benefit of a relationship with Sheen that she otherwise would not have had.
Sheen, 52, also is not identified by name in the suit, which was filed in June 2017. However, Sheen, referred to in the complaint as “confidential male defendant,” learned he was HIV-positive in 2011 and gave national television interviews about his medical status in 2015 and 2016.
Hammock did not mention Sheen’s name during the hearing, but said he had no doubt who the defendant was.
“I figured it out in two seconds and I don’t even read People magazine,” Hammock said.
Jane Doe was described in the suit as a Russian emigre.
Hammock scolded Barnard in his tentative ruling for his characterization of Doe in his court papers, saying the defense attorney “needs to realize that publicly slut-shaming the plaintiff, as he needlessly does in the petition to compel arbitration, wins no favor with this court.”
Hammock reiterated the point Wednesday, saying the negative information about the plaintiff in Bernard’s court papers had nothing to do with the motion. Barnard acknowledged it was erroneous to use such negative language regarding Doe.