Did the Attorneys (and Their Client) that Dallas Cowboys Quarterback Dak Prescott Sued, Blow Their Chance at a "Win"?

I recently posted an article about the lawsuit Dallas Cowboys quarterback, Dak Prescott, filed against two lawyers (“Zehaie” and “Zehaie”) and their client Victoria Shores (“Shores”), alleging extortion, defamation, and other claims, based on a demand that Dak pay her $100 million dollars to settle her claims arising from an alleged sexual assault in 2017. If you haven’t read that article, read it here before you read the rest of this article.

Fortunately for Dak, Shores and her attorneys did exactly the worst thing, strategically, that they could possibly do: they went ahead and filed a lawsuit against Dak alleging the sexual assault in February, 2017.

Why is this a BIG mistake on their part?

First, it is a huge mistake to have filed the lawsuit because they cannot win it. The statute of limitations for a sexual assault is 5 years, and the assault Shores claims occurred was 7 years ago. (Whether the sexual assault happened or not, I have no idea. Assuming it did happen, then it is a shame Shores did not sue Dak within the 5-year time limit.).

Of course, there is an exception to the 5-year statute of limitations (but it isn’t going to save Shores’ lawsuit): If Shores can prove that Dak has been physically outside of Texas for 2 years out of the last 7 years, then the statute of limitations defense would not bar the lawsuit. But think about it . . . how are they going to prove he has been outside of Texas for 2 out of the last 7 years? They can conduct written discovery (requesting his travel records from him, from the Cowboys, request his phone and text records, credit card and bank statements, etc., etc.) and they can take depositions of Dak, the Cowboy’s travel office personnel, and others. They will have to do all that and more to have a chance to identify every day over the last 7 years that Dak was not physically in Texas.

But . . . What is all that discovery and all those depositions going to cost in attorney’s fees and expenses? Since Dak has plenty of money to pay his attorneys, you can bet every objection, delay tactic, motion, legal maneuver, etc. will be used to delay, obstruct, and otherwise prevent the discovery from happening. By the time all the legal maneuvering is over, it could easily have cost Shores $100,000 or more in legal fees and expenses. And even if she can afford that, what are the chances of proving Dak was out of state for 2 out of 7 years? My guess is slim to none.

The second reason this lawsuit is a big mistake is that the whole premise of the Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss that I discussed in my previous article is that Dak’s lawsuit was filed to prevent Shores from exercising her rights of free speech, association, and to petition for redress of grievances (i.e., file a lawsuit). It is a “little” harder to argue that Dak’s lawsuit was to prevent her from filing her own lawsuit, when her attorneys went ahead and filed the lawsuit against Dak!

The third reason it is a mistake for Shores to have filed the lawsuit against Dak, is that when it is all over, and she loses the lawsuit on Dak’s statute of limitations defense, she is going to feel victimized all over again. And, it could be worse than that, as Dak could seek sanctions against her for filing a frivolous lawsuit that is doomed to be lost from the beginning. It is foreseeable that she could be ordered to reimburse to Dak all of his attorney’s fees and expenses ($100,000? More?).

The lawsuit Shores filed against Dak can be downloaded here. Check back with me from time to time as I will follow this case and update developments.

If you, or a loved one has been the victim of assault, family violence, or dating violence, please call us. We can help!