Skip to content

Irvin sues his accuser for $100 million

Taking a page from the Ben Roethlisberger playbook, Hall of Fame wideout Michael Irvin has responded to the sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by launching a legal attack of his own.

According to CBS 11, Irvin has filed a $100 million lawsuit against the woman.  The suit was filed in Dallas, Texas.

In court papers, attorney Larry Friedman claims that the accuser has tortiously interfered with Irvin’s current and prospective business relations, that she has conspired to tortiously interfere with his current and prospective business relations, that she has defamed Irvin, and that she has engaged in extorion of him.

The conspiracy claim is intriguing, given that a conspiracy necessarily requires two or more parties.  It’s possible that the other party to the conspiracy is the woman’s lawyer.

The lawsuit doesn’t provide a clear basis for the decision to file suit in Texas, a forum that Irvin surely believes to be more favorable to his interests. 

Among other things, the lawsuit claims that Irvin is “a victim of his own success,” which has made him the target of “devious unsuccessful individuals.”

Permalink 64 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, Legal, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
64 Responses to “Irvin sues his accuser for $100 million”
  1. danielcp0303 says: Feb 5, 2010 7:55 PM

    Good for him. I’m sick of all these women coming out of nowhere just to make a quick dollar.

  2. DoughBoyRAC says: Feb 5, 2010 7:56 PM

    Why $100 million?
    Did he think about her actual worth, or is trhat the cost of the next dust-fix he needs to avoid really going crazy?
    He’s a disgrace to the NFL and the gold jacket!

  3. Uncle Leo says: Feb 5, 2010 7:56 PM

    Why not sue ESPN for unfair dismissal if he thinks he has a case? They have $100m, not her.

  4. slipkid says: Feb 5, 2010 8:00 PM

    how about a so-called devious successful individual who just got canned…

  5. DoughBoyRAC says: Feb 5, 2010 8:01 PM

    Florio…gonna’ need some proof other than “sexual” to prove “tortious interference.”
    No wonder you chose to write about the Steelers and West Virginia rather than try and make a living on your knowledge of the law.
    If you need lunch money, we’ll pass the hat!

  6. FootballOnly says: Feb 5, 2010 8:01 PM

    As if 100 Million is such a large number that it should convince anyone (including a jury) that the douche bag is innocent…………i hope someone fries this cocaine cowboy.

  7. God's Own Silver and Blue says: Feb 5, 2010 8:03 PM

    And that’s FIVE …

  8. Howie Handles says: Feb 5, 2010 8:05 PM

    Yeah, I find it funny how they pick these numbers. Michael Irvin, I’m going to sue you for 100 kaBillion dollars..no, I’m going to sue you for infinity!

  9. rbais2 says: Feb 5, 2010 8:07 PM

    Hey,
    u posted the story i sent u via email!!!
    Thanks Mike!!!

  10. Johnnyb612 says: Feb 5, 2010 8:08 PM

    Good. I hope the bitch has to start working the streets to pay this off.

  11. Mattinus says: Feb 5, 2010 8:10 PM

    Good for you Michael. I really hope the charges are false and this proves to be an example for people out there who want to extort celebrities.

  12. Bens Attorney says: Feb 5, 2010 8:11 PM

    Good for him , maybe Ben is setting the standard , and maybe these woman ought to realize that these guys are not gonna just fork over the cash, this tells me his is not guilty and I say if you are not guilty , Like I believe Ben is not guilty , then fight and expose these women for what they are, Lyin Gold diggers..
    @Uncle Leo Why not sue ESPN for unfair dismissal if he thinks he has a case? They have $100m, not her.
    If he wins, but I doubt now that it will even go to court , I see withdrawal by the woman myself. He would then have the loophole to sue ESPN for wrongful termination…I am getting my popcorn ready this is getting good.

  13. SuckitFlorio says: Feb 5, 2010 8:12 PM

    Excuse me if i am not ready to believe some cocaine abusing, fire arm concealing, bag of garbage like Irvin…

  14. hizzle1281 says: Feb 5, 2010 8:15 PM

    daaaaaaaaaaaaamnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

  15. Smoking Joe says: Feb 5, 2010 8:17 PM

    “The lawsuit doesn’t provide a clear basis for the decision to file suit in Texas, a forum that Irvin surely believes to be more favorable to his interests.”
    Yeh he got off with coke charges in Dallas before. Of course he had Aikman and Smith sitting where the jury could see them. According to the jury poor little coke head was framed by the escorts he had with and the coke in his trunk, well nobody knows how that got there.

  16. pueblonative says: Feb 5, 2010 8:22 PM

    Very likely the reason why is that he was hired as an “at-will” employeee, and as such they can fire him if they don’t like his hair. Also, the woman may never be able to come up with $100 million dollars (strike that, she very likely won’t). But the ruling would be significant in that it would tell other future false accusers that if they went ahead with these outlandish lies they would spend the rest of their lives with this financial albatross around their neck.

  17. Jimmysmith. says: Feb 5, 2010 8:29 PM

    In a Nation wide study of all cities of NFL teams,it appears that the Green Bay Packers fans are well below the mental retardation in IQ tests.They also scored very low in human relations and reasoning tests.Further more tests show addiction to abnormal sexuality with farm animals and pets alike.
    Included in the study for the city of Green Bay were JimmySmith, Bob_Nelson and Vog.
    Does anyone notice when you take a shit that it looks and smells better then a Packer fan?

  18. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 5, 2010 8:34 PM

    YEAH! GO MIKE GO!

  19. GentlemanEdward says: Feb 5, 2010 8:37 PM

    Haven’t I read this dime novel somewhere before?

  20. GentlemanEdward says: Feb 5, 2010 8:42 PM

    Jock bones gold digger…
    Gold digger cries rape…
    Jock counter-sues….
    Blah blah blah…

  21. Occam says: Feb 5, 2010 8:45 PM

    “i hope someone fries this cocaine cowboy.”
    It’s pretty impressive that you already know he is guilty. Where did you get your gift of clairvoyance? I, for one, am happy that there are smart people like you posting here.

  22. Mr Krinkle says: Feb 5, 2010 8:49 PM

    CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. AllThat says: Feb 5, 2010 8:57 PM

    I wanna be like Mike………..you are a Douchebag…give up the gold jacket…get off the air and leave us alone….no one will miss you…except Vox scuker

  24. JJCheesehead says: Feb 5, 2010 9:00 PM

    he would have a lean put on her wages for the rest of her life, the ultimate slap in the face. its not wrongful for espn to terminate him for possibly breaking the law. tiger woods was dropped by many sponsors for for breaking no laws.
    irvin will be fine, his accomplishments on the field have nothing to do with his life off the field. its unfortunate, that he has had trouble steering clear of trouble. unfortunately irvin lives in the era of mass media, and that has really hurt him.

  25. Bigbluefan says: Feb 5, 2010 9:02 PM

    I think Irvin is an ahole I am a giants fan yeah 2-0 this season againest the cowpukes
    But I think Irvin did the right thing this broad is a money grubbing slut ho

  26. Gruden the Guru says: Feb 5, 2010 9:02 PM

    “Florio…gonna’ need some proof other than “sexual” to prove “tortious interference.”
    No wonder you chose to write about the Steelers and West Virginia rather than try and make a living on your knowledge of the law.”
    So then let’s hear your expert analysis, John Roberts. Florio just provided the link, nothing else.
    I love the couch jockeys who spend hours here and think they are suddenly legal experts just from watching a couple episodes of Judge Judy with their frozen dinners.

  27. Al_Davis_needs_a_dirtnap says: Feb 5, 2010 9:06 PM

    100 million dollars? Is his lawyers assistant Dr.Evil from austin powers?

  28. JMClarkent says: Feb 5, 2010 9:11 PM

    While I am not a fan of his actions, Douchebag does not automatically = Rapist

  29. Deb says: Feb 5, 2010 9:11 PM

    Don’t mean to be cynical, but if these women want to be paid for sleeping with famous athletes, perhaps they could just name their price up front. Then the men will know exactly what they’re getting into. I’ve dealt with a lot of rape survivors and not one has mentioned seeking a monetary settlement or going public in hopes of extorting payment one, two, or three years after the fact. Given that there’s no corroborating evidence, it’s difficult to see how any jury would find in this woman’s favor. And since the police apparently found no grounds for pursuing a criminal investigation, if a rape did occur, there’s no chance of receiving criminal justice now. As with the Roethlisberger case, it seems all this is solely about money. The only difference is that Irvin is married with children and has a history of bad behavior.
    As far as Canton goes, the Pro Football Hall of Fame inducts members based on their performance on the field. Good conduct and high morals aren’t required for earning a gold jacket. Irvin earned his spot in the HoF with his play. On the other hand, he’s a dreadful commentator so it doesn’t surprise me that ESPN radio has used this opportunity to give him the boot. I’d love to see several of the network’s television analysts join him on the unemployment line.

  30. ninerfan says: Feb 5, 2010 9:12 PM

    It’s common knowledge (or at least it should be) that Irvin is nothing more than a petty thug. However, if this woman was really raped WHY wait 2-3 years to report it? Doesn’t make sense to me.

  31. RAVEN MANIAC says: Feb 5, 2010 9:12 PM

    If this occurred in July 2007, why are these accusations coming out in 2010. I have to be missing something here. Its unfortunate that non-objective thinking individuals are going to bring up Mike Irvin pass to make him look bad, but these are much more serious allegations then powdering his nose. Hang in there Mike. When you are cleared of these allegations, tell the media, as you did before,I HOPE YOU ALL PRINT IT WITH THE SAME INTENSITY AS THEY ARE NOW.

  32. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 5, 2010 9:22 PM

    “Why $100 million?”
    Why not?
    I’m reminded of the time that the rest of the NFL (except Al Davis) decided to sue Jerry Jones for $300 million, citing his stadium sponsorship deals with Nike, Pepsi etc. citing the FAIL reasoning that such deals violate prior existing NFL Properties agreements. Jones countersued the NFL (except Al Davis, I believe he was party to the suit) for $750 million, citing very real anti-trust violations committed by the NFL. The NFL dropped it’s suit like a hot tater.

  33. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 5, 2010 9:26 PM

    “Yeh he got off with coke charges in Dallas before. Of course he had Aikman and Smith sitting where the jury could see them. According to the jury poor little coke head was framed by the escorts he had with and the coke in his trunk, well nobody knows how that got there.”
    Don’t you guys ever get tired of making shit up? The incident you think you’re talking about never got to a jury, stupid. Charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.

  34. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 5, 2010 9:27 PM

    “Don’t mean to be cynical, but if these women want to be paid for sleeping with famous athletes, perhaps they could just name their price up front.”
    I agree, but I doubt that Irvin would have paid her a million bucks or even $800,000.

  35. Uncle Leo says: Feb 5, 2010 9:34 PM

    @pueblonative
    The “at-will” clause may seem like an easy way to fire people without repercussion, but from my experience, it is not the case.
    ESPN have already said they were going to fire Irvin on Monday because of bad ratings. They chose to fire him today instead. As such, one can only draw the conclusion that they fired him TODAY, because of this allegation.
    Therefore, it can be easily argued that he was fired today because of this lawsuit becoming public.
    If he is not guilty, he was wrongfully terminated.
    (even though I can’t stand listening to him)

  36. TheGooch says: Feb 5, 2010 9:36 PM

    He didnt Rape her, he may have sniffed a few lines off of her A but thats about it

  37. jvn says: Feb 5, 2010 9:47 PM

    i heard he settled already… (apparently crack and hookers were involved in the deal)

  38. Yellow Ledbetter says: Feb 5, 2010 9:53 PM

    STUPID is as stupid does….If she was even remotely close to being worth 100 mil…..I highly doubt she’d be in a bar with a crackhead…..Maybe God told him to file suit…….

  39. WashingtonRedstorms says: Feb 5, 2010 9:56 PM

    Yea Michael, you are really gong to win this one, keep exposing yourself.

  40. KrazyTrumpeter05 says: Feb 5, 2010 10:05 PM

    I think the $100 million price tag is the “Are you sure you want to do this, princess?” strategy. Pretty sure no one actually expects some random woman to be able to pay $100 mil.

  41. Leviathan says: Feb 5, 2010 10:07 PM

    Go Cowboys! ;)

  42. litemater says: Feb 5, 2010 10:35 PM

    “His contract was up and the show has not performed,” ESPN said in a statement released Friday. “We had previously decided to cancel the show and determined this morning to make it effective today. The permanent replacement begins at 11 a.m. CT [Friday] — Ben Rogers and Jeff “Skin” Wade ["Ben and Skin"].”
    Hence the word CONTRACT UP….

  43. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 5, 2010 10:47 PM

    Whatever you say ol’ yeller.

  44. DG0122 says: Feb 5, 2010 11:04 PM

    This is a serious question, because I have not heard-Is Irvin saying he is innocent, as in there was an encounter but it was not rape; or he is innocent, as in I have never seen this person before and it is complete fabrication?

  45. The Van Buren Boys says: Feb 5, 2010 11:34 PM

    Why settle for $100 million? I’d sue for a $100 gazillion! Seriously though, do you know how blow and hookers he could buy with that much money???

  46. pdxbolt4life says: Feb 5, 2010 11:45 PM

    Shocking allegations….simply shocking

  47. MasterShake says: Feb 5, 2010 11:51 PM

    In a few months\years, Irvin will lower his lawsuit to $800,00. A while latter, they both decide to split a bag of powder as a settlement.
    Just marry her already.

  48. The Polish Rifle says: Feb 6, 2010 12:01 AM

    What a dumpster slut this broad is…

  49. HereThere says: Feb 6, 2010 12:16 AM

    I’ve never really liked Irvin, but I’m pulling for him. Kobe, Big Ben, on and on. These gold diggers can make any accusation they want, and hide in the shadows while slandering someone. It’s a joke. Funny how Big Ben’s and Irvin’s accusers never filed police charges.

  50. Farves sweet Hair says: Feb 6, 2010 1:21 AM

    I can’t believe TV networks put this guy on TV? It’s just retarded. This guy has proven over & over again that he’s a total idiot. NOT SOMEONE TO LOOK UP TO!

  51. VonClausewitz says: Feb 6, 2010 1:47 AM

    You know the whole point of this thing was to hurt Irvins’ rep. And even if it’s proven to be spurious, which any intelligent person would expect, she’s still done her damage.

  52. DJSlyBri says: Feb 6, 2010 2:14 AM

    Tortious interference with a contract and business relations ? FAIL! You have to prove that she had knowledge of the contract or the business relations, that she intended to interfere with them, and thay she did it for an improper purpose. Proving that she knew of his contracts is hard, and proving that she was motivated by interfering with those contracts if very dificulty. I doubt the court would get as far as the improper purpose.
    And, unless her actions have some tangible connections to Texas, it is doubtul that she has the minimal contact necessary to satsify due process. I could get that law suit dismissed like nothing.
    The only reason the lawsuit was filed was to get the headlines Irvin and his people feel they need.
    That’s all lawyer speak. Irvin is a scumbag, but I believe he is completely innocent of this.

  53. Adam says: Feb 6, 2010 2:27 AM

    Good for him

  54. Dolphinatic says: Feb 6, 2010 4:59 AM

    With 100mil he could open his own chain of nose candy/ battery operated pleasure device/ self employed model super-store.

  55. hckcm7315 says: Feb 6, 2010 5:35 AM

    Women, they be shoppin’!

  56. NAACPNOFRIENDOMINE says: Feb 6, 2010 7:31 AM

    Once a thug-always a crack smoking, self absorbed, prostitute patronizing thug. The pride of the “U”

  57. tian says: Feb 6, 2010 7:55 AM

    I must say this: this whole “I’m going to sue you because you raped me” game has been going on for a while now. I am always suspicious when females who claim to have been raped first reach out to civil court in a lawsuit. And that’s the first you hear about it.
    I mean, was there a police report? Is there a criminal investigation? If not, why not? Is it because filing a false report is a felony that might land you in prison?
    She may know all of this, but is looking for a payday.
    See, here’s how it goes (for the slow)
    Rich, famous dude walks into a bar. Buxom, flirty female basically beats him up trying to get him to give her the business. After a few drinks, he goes for it. She takes some of the evidence.
    Time passes.
    He gets a knock on the door and he gets served with a lawsuit. He tries to even remember who the person was, because she probably called herself “Bunny” or Luscious” or something like that. Then he realizes that he just fell for the trick.
    That’s why I’m going to copyright a quick three-line contract that when som chick comes up in a bar, she signs it, the bartender signs it, and then you’re safe. It should be called “The Sexual Adventure Indemnity Clause.”

  58. GoBrowns19 says: Feb 6, 2010 8:21 AM

    If I were a girl, I’d sleep with a rich athlete and try and cash in too…it’s tough out there.

  59. Mikey D says: Feb 6, 2010 8:27 AM

    # danielcp0303 says: February 5, 2010 7:55 PM
    Good for him. I’m sick of all these women coming out of nowhere just to make a quick dollar.
    Agreed. I hope she drops her suit and he continues with his and buries her ass.

  60. BillyBobvikes says: Feb 6, 2010 9:09 AM

    I can feel the “ELECTWICITY” in the air!!!!!!!!!!!!

  61. drbob1117 says: Feb 6, 2010 11:05 AM

    I’m an Eagles fan and can’t stand the guy. That said, good for him. Some skank decides three years after the fact to invent a civil suit when there was no criminal report filed at the time of the incident, and she figured she’d get away with it. I hope he takes everything she’s got, even if that’s next to nothing.

  62. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 6, 2010 12:48 PM

    “Tortious interference with a contract and business relations ? FAIL! You have to prove that she had knowledge of the contract or the business relations”
    You mean something like knowing that he worked for ESPN and the NFLN? If she contacted them or anybody else that Irvin has a business relationship with and made disparaging and untrue remarks about Irvin for purposes of screwing him over because she was pissed off that he didn’t give her the wad of cash that she wanted whether he raped her or NOT, that satisfies the claim of tortious interference and she is screwed hard, up against a wall with her wrists duct-taped to her ankles and super glue on her lips.
    “I could get that law suit dismissed like nothing.”
    Sure, counselor. I guess we’ll see if a REAL lawyer can.

  63. Bazooka Joe says: Feb 7, 2010 11:39 AM

    ESPN can ignore Big Ben’s rape allegations and yet plaster Michael Irvin’s all over the news.
    I guess ESPN favors and protects hillbillies, too.

  64. trinagee says: Feb 26, 2010 7:29 PM

    I love you Micheal!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 But DAMN

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!