Michael Irvin has re-filed his defamation lawsuit in Arizona

NFL Combine
Getty Images

Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin has not given up his fight against the hotel that played a direct role in getting him suspended by NFL Network and ESPN during Super Bowl week.

The case, we’re told, has already been re-filed in Arizona. The goal was to correct the defect arising from the fact that Marriott doesn’t technically own the property at which the incident occurred.

The case likely has been filed against the owner of the hotel and one or more individual employees of the hotel.

Why Arizona and not Texas? Apparently, the company that owns and operates the hotel does not have sufficient ties to Texas, insulating it from the jurisdiction of the Texas courts.

Meanwhile, Irvin will reveal the surveillance video at an 11 a.m. CT press conference. We’ll have more details as the event unfolds.

22 responses to “Michael Irvin has re-filed his defamation lawsuit in Arizona

  1. Seems like Irvin is scrambling a bit. Seems like his legal team might have said the case against “Marriott” is weak. (‘the company that owns and operates the hotel does not have sufficient ties to Texas’)

    The victims statement seemed very credible.

  2. I was on Mariott’s side but Irvin is pushing ahead and seems as he wants justice. The tape will tell a lot…

  3. So this is all based on technicalities. Show us the video, and most importantly, the AUDIO! People need to hear the raw audio, not audio that’s been edited or muted.

  4. Again, maybe this will come out when Irvin’s case gets blown out of the water but, what did the hotel or employee do to get sued? From what I understand all they did was go to the NFL – BEHIND CLOSED DOORS- and tell them and the network what they believe happened. Irvin is only making this worse for himself.

  5. It would be nice to see this press conference, but I’m pretty sure that neither ESPN nor NFL Network will cover it.

  6. I don’t see how it’s possible for employees or the hotel to “defame” Irvin. All that happened was that the incident was reported and the hotel chose to report it to Irvin’s employer. None of those from the hotel have made any statements about Irvin. His suit should be with his employer.

  7. I’d be really surprised if the security video has audio that is clear enough to influence the case one way or the other. Sure many security cameras CAN record audio, but in a crowded lobby? Color me skeptical.

  8. The video means nothing. All it will show is the glove not fitting. There is no audio of his vulgar, verbal assault which left a young woman feeling traumatized and threatened. A large old man asking a total stranger if she’d ever had a *lack *ick inside her. Classy. He had zero tolerance clauses in his contract for behavioral concerns dictated by previous incidences. That means zero.

  9. He has three witnesses saying he never said anything wrong, the video will show he never touches her.

  10. Didn’t Irvin initally admit he was intoxicated? Then how can his account be seen as credible unless the footage miraculously has audio?

  11. dryzzt23 says:
    March 14, 2023 at 10:38 am
    So this is all based on technicalities. Show us the video, and most importantly, the AUDIO! People need to hear the raw audio, not audio that’s been edited or muted.

    There is no audio. There will not be any audio. That’s what Irvin is banking on. It’s his “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit” defense.

    However, as I understand it the young woman was interviewed by the hotel management, ESPN staff, and NFL Network personnel. After all three interviews were corroborated against the others for accuracy and content, the NFL sent their own security people to escort him from the hotel.

    Sure, he’s innocent.

  12. Shouldn’t a lawyer figure out who owns the business you’re suing before filing a lawsuit?

  13. It seems like Irvin believes that because there was no physical interaction he will be vindicated. But this isn’t 1985 when you can say whatever foulness you want to a woman and have no repercussion. And considering he was too drunk to remember what was said, he seems pretty confident words can’t hurt him. We shall see.

  14. He should just move on. It is obvious that he had an interaction that was not welcomed and when reported to employer, they took action. Hotel did not dis-credit him in any way. They simply reported what was told to them. He stated that he was intoxicated and was unaware of what he said.

  15. Hopefully, the show the entire tape and not some digitized, chopped up and edited version.

  16. All as I said earlier. BTW, it’s not a “technicality” whether a named defendant owns the property. If the parties are different, they are different. Lawyers have to get their facts straight.

    This has nothing to do with whether Irvin’s claim that the women a re making up their allegation, which may well be right.

  17. It’s the fact that Irvin admitted that he had been drinking and couldn’t remember what he said to the woman. That’s what makes his case shaky. It will then be a he said/she said situation. He may not have touched her inappropriately, but he may very well have said what she claims he said. Then what? Is it a wash that gets thrown out?

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.