The 31-year-old former child model who accused X-Men director Bryan Singer and several other high-ranking Hollywood executives of molesting him as a minor has dropped his lawsuit against Singer, admitting that he’s unable to move forward with the case because he can’t find a lawyer to represent him.
The AP reports that the relationship between Michael Egan and his original attorney Jeff Herman began to “deteriorate” as early as May, when Herman filed a request to be removed from the case. At the time, Herman told the court that he was seeking dismissal from the case because he believed Egan had lied about previous accusations of sexual misconduct against three other men.
Earlier this summer, Egan dropped those lawsuits after evidence debunking his claims came to light.
Vince Finaldi, a California attorney “advising but not representing” Egan told the AP that Egan declined to accept a $100,000 settlement from Singer earlier this year because “No. 1, the money wasn’t enough and No. 2, they were trying to shut him up.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Singer sought to have the case dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can’t be refiled, and wanted Egan to pay his attorney fees. U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway denied the request, and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Egan will have the opportunity to file the case again in the future if he chooses.
To add insult to injury, Mollway added that, in her opinion, “any alleged damage to defendant’s reputation may well be ameliorated by plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the action.”
Speaking with the AP, Singer’s lawyer said, “Although we would have liked the case dismissed on merits, the fact that now it’s dropped … is satisfactory. We’re pleased that it’s over.”
No word on how Egan’s sexual assault documentary is coming along…
Cam
That’s the problem, once the lawyers know he didn’t want to settle, a lot don’t want to bother. If they are going to spend years on a case and lay out a ton of money flying witnesses in etc.. they want one that they know they will have a 95% chance of winning. By showing he would refuse large settlement offers you aren’t going to get many attorneys to bite.
Interesting though that the judge dismissed without prejudice, refused to grant Singer’s attorney’s fees and in her dismissal laid out that Singer could not sue for damage to his reputation.
Sounds like the Judge didn’t like what she saw in some of the documents.
Merv
According to his own lawyer, Egan lied about the other cases. The lawyer asked to be dropped from this case, too, so we can safely assume he thought he was lying about this case, as well. Anyone who still insists on Singer’s guilt is not looking at the facts objectively. Dismissal without prejudice is not evidence of guilt. It’s just the opposite.
Cam
@Merv:
Merv remember before when you came in here and kept making up things and shilling for Singer that everybody asked you to for once provide a link?
Please allow me to repeat that request.
And if you are going to try to pretend to know anything about the law you should….well just don’t.
Dismissal without prejudice means that they leave open the possibility of reopening the case because the judge saw some merit in it. If there was none the Judge would have dismissed with prejudice. The fact that you would lie about that shows that you are much more interested in pushing an agenda than in making a real comment. (As your 500 comments on the previous thread already show).
bbg372
@Cam:
“Interesting though that the judge dismissed without prejudice, refused to grant Singer’s attorney’s fees and in her dismissal laid out that Singer could not sue for damage to his reputation.
Sounds like the Judge didn’t like what she saw in some of the documents.”
Singer’s legal team argued that dismissal without prejudice would harm Singer.
However, Judge Mollway wrote Wednesday, “Defendant fails to demonstrate that he will suffer plain legal prejudice as a result of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) (2).”
Mollway denied Singer’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, because the director had not provided any indication of what his legal costs were:
“Defendant fails . . . to even identify what his fees and costs are,” Mollway wrote. “This court is left with no basis on which to evaluate the fees and costs requested.”
Clearly, those decisions were made on procedural grounds and have nothing to do with the merits of the case.
Merv
@Cam: Wow, so much misinformation and innuendo in one post! Congratulations.
No, I don’t remember making things up. Care to be specific? I have stuck to the facts. I previously provided a link to a Queerty story about Egan’s previous sworn testimony saying he had never been in Hawaii, which directly contradicted his now dismissed allegations. That’s a pretty important piece of information, don’t you think? How can anything have happened to Egan in Hawaii if he’s never been there? Instead, you droned on and on about Singer not being able to provide proof that he wasn’t in Hawaii at the time. Even if Singer were in Hawaii, you would still need Egan to have been there in order for anything to have happened. Is that hard to understand? When will you acknowledge that this is devastating for Egan’s case against Singer?
Oh, and what about the clear evidence that Egan lied in his accusations about three other men? Is a history of lying not relevant to you?
I know what dismissal without prejudice is, Einstein. Any dismissal is bad for the plaintiff. It shows that his case is weak. Your trying to spin it as a positive because it wasn’t with prejudice is laughable. Singer just hit a homerun, and you’re bitching because it wasn’t a grand slam.
When are you going to give up? This case has crashed and burned about as much as possible. I’m starting to become embarrassed for you.
Black Pegasus
$100,000 is chump change. His lawyers gets roughly 33% of that, and the plaintiff pays taxes on the sum total. I don’t blame him for turning down that small amount. How is he going to buy a new Porsche with those nickels? lol
Cam
@Merv:
Merv, once again, I stated that the specific issues people had with your postings in the past were that you kept making claims and refusing to post any proof or links.
Secondly you flat out lied. You stated that dismissal without prejudice is the opposite of guilt. No, if the judge wanted to make that clear she would have dismissed without prejudice so that the case could not be reopened.
So once again you come in try to make statements without providing proof or a link and get all wrapped up in this. The last time a Singer Post appeared on this site was pretty much the last time you posted, and you ended up posting around 30 times.
So lets not pretend that you don’t have some kind of agenda here shall we?
arj
Let’s not forget all the advance monies for the book, the movie, talk show appearances, Oprah, and all the residuals from the publicity machine, once it gets cranked up. Mr. Egan will make a fortune.
Whether or not all these accusations are true, I have no idea. I’m not stupid, either. I am sure somewhere in there is the truth…a little bit of this and a little bit of that. It was probably mutually beneficial.
For a washed up 30 yr old, you gotta take what shot you can……
Merv
@Cam: You’re speaking in generalities. What specifically do you want a link for? My argument has rested almost exclusively on Egan’s previous sworn testimony that he had never been to Hawaii. I posted it before, but here is the link again if you don’t remember.
http://www.queerty.com/bryan-singer-accuser-claimed-to-have-never-been-to-scene-of-alleged-assaults-in-previous-lawsuit-20140513
My claim about Egan’s lawyer believing that Egan lied in his accusations against three other men is on this very page in the story above. It doesn’t make sense to provide a link, but here is the text:
“Herman told the court that he was seeking dismissal from the case because he believed Egan had lied about previous accusations of sexual misconduct against three other men.”
Is there anything else you want a link for?
As for the dismissal, I said “Dismissal without prejudice is not evidence of guilt. It’s just the opposite.” Egan asked for dismissal because he lost his lawyer. He lost his lawyer because the lawyer thought the case was weak. The case was weak because Egan’s previous testimony, if true, meant Singer could not possibly have done what he was accused of. So, is Egan lying now, or was he lying in his previous testimony? They can’t both be true.
Would it have been better for Singer if the case had been dismissed with prejudice? Obviously, yes. But it is still very good news for Singer.
As for me only posting about this lawsuit, this is flat out wrong. Type the following query into your favorite search engine and you will see I have been posting for years on many stories:
“merv -griffin site:queerty.com”
mikeg
@Cam: You’re confused Cam. That was YOU that kept making things up and never provided links to anything.
And here you go again, making stuff up about why his lawyer quit. Same old same old huh. How can you seriously accuse others of having an agenda when you’re the only one who acts that way? It’s just silly.
Queer4Life
@Cam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_%28legal_procedure%29 Guilty means guilty. Dissmed without prejudice does not mean guilty, just like nolo contendere does not mean guilty.
Here is something to consider. Less than 1% of all cases make it to trial 95% of those cases that do not make it to trial take a plea bargain. The court system is a joke and the prosecutors don’t care about right or wrong they only care about the body count. It’s all about how many convictions they can get. Defense attorneys especially public defenders are just as likely to throw someone under the bus.
It is my belief that no sentences should be harsher than what is offered for the plea bargain offered regardless of the crime. Yes that does include rape and murder, then maybe more cases would go to trial, and maybe there would be less social purging.
Cagnazzo82
Maybe he’ll wait till X-men: Apocalypse is out in theaters before cooking up more fraudulent accusations.
jmmartin
This is just classic and is precisely the kind of thing that makes the public hate lawyers: “Vince Finaldi, a California attorney ‘advising but not representing’ Egan told the AP that Egan declined to accept a $100,000 settlement from Singer earlier this year because ‘No. 1, the money wasn’t enough and No. 2, they were trying to shut him up.'” Translation: Egan will settle for more than $100,000 whether his claim is true or bogus.
Cam
@Queer4Life: said…
“Guilty means guilty. Dissmed without prejudice does not mean guilty, just like nolo contendere does not mean guilty.”
______________________
Yes, I know. Merv stated that Guilty without prejudice means the judge thought Singer was not guilty which is a lie. I pointed out that no, if she really believed that she would have dismissed with prejudice so Egan could not refile the case.
Merv
@Cam: Why do you keep on distorting what I say? Here is exactly what I said: “Dismissal without prejudice is not evidence of guilt. It’s just the opposite.” That’s true in this case, because the dismissal wasn’t due to a technicality. It was due to the plaintiff’s case falling apart due to conflicting testimony and questionable credibility of the plaintiff. Even the judge in the case said that “any alleged damage to defendant’s reputation may well be ameliorated by plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the action.” So, even she acknowledged that the dismissal without prejudice was a positive for Singer and tended to clear his name, just as I said. It seems like you’re the only one who thinks this dismissal is a bad thing for Singer.
sesfm
I’m sure there are hundreds of gay boys in LA who WISH they were attractive enough to get the attention of powerful players and would be more than willing to do whatever they asked. Instead of bitching (or fabricating stories) about being used for his appearance, perhaps he should count his blessings and imagine where he would be if he had to rely on something other than the way he looks.