Dallas Cowboys Quarterback, Dak Prescott, Files Defamation Case

Is This a Game Winner or Game Loser?

A very interesting case was recently filed in Collin County, Texas.

Victoria Shores (“Shores”) hired two attorneys (“Zehaie” and “Zehaie”) to send a demand letter to Dallas Cowboys quarterback, Dak Prescott, alleging that he committed sexual assault against her in 2017. Dak Prescott denies the allegation.

If Dak pays her $100 million, Shores will settle and “forego pursuing criminal charges, along with disclosing this information to the public . . ..”. This is certainly a bold demand, since the statute of limitations for Shores to sue Dak in civil court expired two years ago,andany lawsuit she filed would likely be dismissed by summary judgment.

Dak Prescott did not wait to be sued. Instead, his attorneys blitzed – they filed a lawsuit against Shores and her attorneys, asserting various causes of action for defamation, civil extortion / duress, civil conspiracy, and others. While it is reasonable to question the strength of the claims behind Shores’ demand, that is not what is interesting to me. To me what is interesting is:

Did Dak Prescott just expose himself to payment of the other side’s attorney’s fees, plus potentially high monetary sanctions, by filing this lawsuit?

Texas has the Texas Citizen Participation Act (TCPA), also known as the Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute (SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”). In short, this law protects the ability of a person to exercise her constitutional rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. Basically, whether our motives are pure or not, and whether our facts are true or not, if we are sued because of the exercise of one of these rights, Anti-SLAPP comes into play. The public policy for the statute is that we cannot allow someone to use the court system to bully someone else into not being able to freely exercise their rights to freedom of speech, association, and to petition.

In other words, if Dak Prescott’s lawsuit is based on Shores’ and her attorneys’ exercise of the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and/or the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances (and it certainly is, at least in large part), then they can respond with an Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss against Dak.

When Defendants file their Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss, a hearing will be held in 60 – 90 days, at which time Dak Prescott will have to put forward sufficient evidence on each element of each challenged cause of action. If he fails to do so, then his case will be dismissed. And if it is dismissed, he will be ordered to pay Defendants’ attorney’s fees and expenses. In a case such as this, that could be $50,000 or more.

Even more significantly, the Court can enter a sanctions order against Dak, in an amount “the court determines sufficient to deter [him] from bringing similar actions” in the future. For someone with the wealth of Dak Prescott, how big would a sanctions order have to be to dissuade him from bringing a similar lawsuit in the future? $1 million? $10 million? $20 million? More?

By analogy, imagine a big game in which the Dallas Cowboys are winning by 5 points, with three seconds left, and all that Dak Prescott has to do is take a knee. Instead, Dak passes . . .. Will it be intercepted and returned against him for a game winning touchdown?

Anti-SLAPP situations can occur in many situations, and often are often found in family law cases when a claim of defamation is made against the other party (I have one of those now).

The case is styled Rayne Dakota Prescott vs. Victoria Baileigh Shores, Bethel T. Zehaie, and Yoel T. Zehaie, and is filed in the 493^rd Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas, The Honorable Christine Nowak Presiding. You can download the lawsuit here and you can read an article about it here.