Garth Brooks filed two complaints against the woman who is suing him for assault

Last week, Garth Brooks was sued in a California state court for sexual assault, battery and harassment. The woman who sued him used to work for him – as an independent contractor/hair stylist and MUA – and she claims that he exposed himself to her, harassed her in person and electronically and assaulted her at a hotel. Brooks pushed back on her claims, saying that the woman had “hassled” him with “threats, lies, and tragic tales of what my future would be if I did not write a check for many millions of dollars. It has been like having a loaded gun waved in my face.” Brooks also noted that he filed an anonymous suit in September to stop the attempted extortion and defamation. Now Garth Brooks has filed two complaints in Mississippi. Sidenote: why all of the jurisdictional drama? The woman apparently lives in Mississippi, Garth and Trisha live in Tennessee, so why did the woman initially file suit in California?

Garth Brooks is taking legal action in response to a lawsuit filed by a former hairstylist and makeup artist of his that accused him of sexual assault and battery last week. The “Friends in Low Places” singer, 62, filed a pair of complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on Tuesday, Oct. 8, denying the allegations the woman — whom he names in one of the documents — made against him and claiming that he was the “victim of a shakedown.”

In one of the complaints obtained by PEOPLE, Brooks used the pseudonym “John Doe” and noted that he would “re-file his complaint without pseudonyms” against “Jane Doe,” since the woman’s attorneys “disclosed” his identity to the press. In that filing, he also claimed that he was seeking to “defend himself against extortion.”

In his second complaint, Brooks asked for a trial by jury in order to “obtain relief” from the woman who he claimed was also attempting “defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress” on him. The musician alleged that the woman “devised a malicious scheme to blackmail” him into paying her “millions of dollars” after he “rejected her request for salaried employment and medical benefits.” He also claimed that she “threatened” to “publicly disclose false claims” about him that would “imperil his business and reputation.”

He further claimed in his court filing that she had worked as an “independent contractor” for him for 15 years before relocating from Tennessee to Mississippi. He said following her move, she “encountered financial difficulties” and asked him for assistance, which he claims he offered. Brooks claims the woman eventually asked for “salaried employment and medical benefits,” but when he denied her request, she “responded with false and outrageous allegations of sexual misconduct she claims occurred years ago.” The allegations, which included sexual “grooming,” “unwanted sexual touching and sexual assault” among others, were allegedly submitted in a “demand letter” to Brooks and “others” whom he worked with on July 17, 2024.

“The July 17 demand letter was the first time Plaintiff learned of these allegations, none of which has any basis in fact,” the complaint alleged. He claimed the woman then “threatened” to “publicly file” the letter — which he called “false and defamatory” — in a “draft civil complaint” against him unless he agreed to pay her “millions of dollars.” He said in the filing that she threatened that if he “failed to meet this demand” for payment, he “would face exposure of many millions of dollars ‘based on [his] net worth.’ ”

In addition to a trial, Brooks requested a “declaratory judgment” from the court that her allegations “against him of sexual misconduct are untrue” and compensatory and punitive damages, along with attorney’s fees.

[From People]

In the previous post, I said that “believe women” should still apply, and I hope this woman is given a fair hearing. If she has evidence to back up her claims, the court and the lawyers will hopefully be able to figure something out. We’ve gotten so used to accused predators huffing and puffing about how they’re going to fight the charges, and then some of the time, those guys settle out of court quickly once their lawyers tell them “hey, this evidence doesn’t look good for you” or “this could do huge reputational damage if any of this comes out.” So keep your eye on that, although the way Garth is going after this woman in court, my gut is telling me that he’s not going to settle.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

39 Responses to “Garth Brooks filed two complaints against the woman who is suing him for assault”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ML says:

    Jane Roe said she was raped in a Los Angeles hotel—filing suit in California seems to fit.

    I don’t understand why this guy is getting so much sympathy! It’s really weird to me that Garth Brooks filed to keep his name out of the papers before she even filed a lawsuit, which is not how the courts work. If she has no evidence, her lawsuit will be tossed anyway—she can’t block the courts without evidence. Before she filed, he also had a gushy news cycle about how much he loves his wife, and apparently they sold a Tennessee home. He’s acting like he’s got something to hide. And he doxxed her in subsequent filings because she filed against him. He’s coming across as using a sledgehammer on a mosquito.

    • Aerie says:

      Why shouldn’t he get any sympathy? He hasn’t been found guilty and so far no concrete evidence has been presented proving her accusations. Hold your horses and let this play out in court.

      • @Aerie. I completely agree. Let’s see all receipts in court before deciding.

      • nmb says:

        Agreed. Here to say that we can believe women, but also our justice system says people are innocent until they are proven guilty. Let’s look at all the people who are falsely imprisoned and proven to be innocent years later. Yes, there’s much more complexity with those kinds of cases vs. famous white man, but I think how I have a friend who was charged with a felony because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with a sociopathic college roommate he thought was a friend. It was really scary and became a major headache it was. The cops showed up to arrest him and he had no idea why. His charge was quickly dismissed but he had a felony charge on his record before getting it expunged. When he went into the Marines and then law school he had to disclose it and it gave him a lot of stress. (This same roommate ended up stealing my husband’s identity among additional crimes and went to prison. Yikes.)

    • Mil says:

      @ml

      I have been asking myself the same. I do not think that having double standards based on political views helps democracy, but that could be just me. He is just another entitled, rich male, so I am not gonna bend over backwards to defend his sorry behind.

      • Jess says:

        MIL, my thought exactly. Why do so many people rush to defend rich white dudes? They’ve got enough advantages. I’m saving my energy for people who don’t have so many advantages.

      • Aerie says:

        Guys who aren’t rich and white rarely fare well in court or the court of public opinion. They are quickly denounced, discredited and thrown away (or worse). No one is rushing to defend Garth Brooks but those who rush to condemn him because he’s a rich white male are no different than the bigots who condemn others based on their racial and socioeconomic status.

      • Ella says:

        This is classic.

        Most men, Rich or poor, abuse the court system to retaliate against their victims. There needs to be a law mandating extreme fines and jail time for these men who drag women through court for years to silence them in the many cases where they are found guilty.

        Why would he deny her a permanent job after 10 years. To keep her dispensable. Sounds shady.

        She must have some good evidence here, that he doesn’t know about, to be so specific in her filing.

        He’s a high testosterone male and She allegedly put up with his harassment for years until the point that he pushed boundaries further leading to assault and battery. He probably stopped abusing her for some time so she felt safer to ask for a permanent position. That doesn’t mean he’s innocent it just means she got a raw deal for 10 years and was assaulted on top of that and offered him the chance to avoid court by compensating her properly.

      • Aerie says:

        @Ella

        You make a lot of assumptions and presumptions without any facts beyond Jane’s original filing. The legal system is prone to misuse by every single person who gets involved in a case. A defendant will use every tool at their disposal to avoid a conviction and the prosecution will do the same to get a conviction. Drawing a connection between Garth not hiring her and SA is misleading and shows a lack of understanding of how the legal system actually works. If you think she’s telling the truth then let the facts support her case and not a biased opinion based on him being a ‘high testosterone male’.

    • Eating Popcorn says:

      Her allegations of misconduct aside, her working for him for 15 years as an independent contractor then asking to work as an employee and him denying it doesn’t exactly make him look like the hero he thinks it does.

      • OriginalMich says:

        Why would he need a hair and makeup artist as a fulltime employee?

      • Phyllis says:

        I came here to say the same….and iirc, employers have a responsibility to make people that work for them an employee if they reach a certain compensation level….11k is stuck in my head as a limit, but I could be off base…regardless, if he compensated her up to that level or over, he is legally required to put her on his payroll. It becomes difficult for the worker bc the onus is on them for taxes, etc and they are not covered by workers comp ins. I’m not trying to make excuses for her actions at all, just saying that that sort of employee/employee situation does suck.

      • OriginalMich says:

        @ Phyllis. That is absolutely not true. I’m an independent contractor and I do work substantially above that level for clients. It would be ridiculous to expect them to make me an employee. They aren’t my only clients and I am contracted to on an “as needed” basis. Can you please tell me a state where what you are talking about is the case?

    • pottymouth pup says:

      “It’s really weird to me that Garth Brooks filed to keep his name out of the papers before she even filed a lawsuit, which is not how the courts work.”

      I thought that as well but figured he must have some evidence of an extortion attempt from her to support that if his attorney’s really thought filing this suit would keep his name out of it. The suit alone made news so there was already all sorts of speculation who it was. My guess is she filed in CA because there was no lawsuit to prevent his name from being made public and that it would get reported on right away.

      @popcorn not sure why you think he thinks not making her a full time employee makes him look like the hero. I think the information is provided by him as a motive for her to resort to allegedly extorting him. She didn’t work for him full time over that 15 years, I think she was an independent contractor who worked for him periodically

      If he’s guilty, this will all come out in court,

      If this was an attempt at extortion and he has the receipts (and they’d have to be clearly recognized as threats of blackmail) he may be exculpated

  2. Arizona says:

    I wonder if she filed in California because it was more likely that outlets like TMZ would pick it up? or maybe the assaults happened in California?

  3. Bumblebee says:

    When I read that article, all of these things that he says are so terrible and he implies are blackmail, sound like legal documents to me? Demand letter, civil complaint, etc. Either she got bad legal advice or is he pulling the ‘blame the accuser’ game, very very aggressively. To me, all his ‘yelling’ and using the court system like it belongs to him, just makes him look like someone who would do what she said.

    • ML says:

      This is how his actions read to me as well, BumbleBee.
      I just came back to add that when I was a kid, priests and teachers and a doctor and a scout leader where I grew up were outed as predators who sexually assaulted women/ children. They did good work, like Garth Brooks with Habitat for Humanity, but were also major creeps at the same time. He’s beloved due to his reputation, but it doesn’t mean he’s not done what he’s being accused of. If there isn’t a case, Jane Roe’s not going to be able to sue him. The way he’s handling this makes it seem like she’s definitely got something on him that he legally wants to hide.

    • OriginalMich says:

      He is saying she fell on hard times after moving to Mississippi and while he initially helped her out, her requests escalated. When he started saying ‘no,’ she created false claims to try to extort it from him. When that didn’t work, she escalated.

      She says there were sexts but there are (apparently) none included in her lawsuit. She also says he did things that quite frankly sound physically impossible. But who knows, maybe the person who wrote up the acts just did a bad job of describing them.

      She is within the statute of limitations to file a criminal complaint but hasn’t.

      I don’t know if he is or isn’t a predator. Maybe he is. I also don’t know if she is a victim. Maybe she is.

      • Sankay says:

        Yes, the sex she describes sounds physically impossible based on that I’d agree with the shakedown theory. I guess we’ll have to wait if there’s a correction or more information is released.

  4. Oh come on. says:

    I don’t see how she alleges harassment by text message without the text messages to prove it. Aiui the alleged assault took place in California and judgments are higher there—ofc she’s not gonna file in Mississippi or Tennessee if she has the option.

    Idk what happened but it doesn’t look like “absolutely nothing, this is groundless extortion” from what he and she say.

  5. Mab's A'Mabbin says:

    This is going to take a minute.

  6. girl_ninja says:

    I hope the REAL truth comes out. Rarely do victims lie about being assaulted but it does happen. I just hope that justice prevails if she is being honest.

  7. fwiw says:

    Maybe the truth is in the middle. Maybe they had an affair for several years until she moved to Mississippi. Maybe she is telling things that happened consensually as if they were not consensual because she wants financial security & thought he’d give in rather than risk his career. Maybe his denials are that he is not a sexual predator, just an adulterer. Maybe it will settle & we’ll never know.

  8. Sherry says:

    If this woman is lying, she’s set women who have actually been sexually assaulted back years and years.

    • Lynne says:

      Agree 100%
      The hotel in California should provide the reservation records which will list if he reserved the room for 1 (just himself) or 2 people.

      • Aerie says:

        No one is refuting that they shared a room. And sharing a room doesn’t mean something happened.

  9. Emanym says:

    I’m more swayed by the text message exchange that her attorneys are trying to paint as evidence of inappropriate behavior. The top is redacted, then she says “And that big stick you carry!! Roosevelt!!” He says, “I’ll take that nickname. Thank you. Love you.”

    Her attorneys are saying that Brooks forced her to refer to his “big stick” in conversations. Roosevelt is well known for his big stick diplomacy, which is what that exchange seems to be referencing . I’d think if you possessed lurid messages that you’d lead with that.

    • 80sMercedes says:

      I’m of the mind that if Brooks wasn’t culpable, his lawyer wouldn’t have named the complainant in their filing. They could’ve gone with Jane Roe but they wanted to make a point apparently and used the woman’s actual name.

  10. Chaine says:

    Comments show a lot of confusion between civil and criminal law. She is suing him in civil court. There is not “innocent” or “guilty” there. He doesn’t get any presumption of innocence. He will either be found liable, or not liable.

    Also, for a civil case, the standard of proof is much lower. All she has to persuade the jury is that it is more likely than not that this happened. The text message was not at all convincing to me of ANYTHING, stupid of her to include it if that’s all there is. It will probably come down to who is more credible when they testify about what occurred, him or her, and whether she has anyone else that can say back in 2018 or whenever it was that she told them at the time that Garth Brooks had r*ped her.

    • osito says:

      This comment is it.

      I think there are a million great reasons for a complainant to file in civil court vs. criminal, just like there are a million shady reasons to do it. There are great reasons for Brooks to have wanted anonymity, and there are terrible ones. I think the personal jurisdiction issues with Cali. are going to be interesting. I do wonder why that choice was made since both parties are out-of-state and Jane Roe’s claim could have also been filed in Tenn. where there would have been fewer jurisdictional issues to overcome in a civil claim.

      I think this particular case has characteristics that can get a wide swath of people worked up, so it’s best to err on the side of caution in all directions. Believe credible evidence in either direction, and understand the nature of the filings.

  11. A Guest says:

    I just read where she believes that Garth Brooks was planning on hiring someone to kill her. Which…what?

  12. Brynne says:

    Absolutely this is a civil suit, there’s no “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” but what’s the truth on a balance of probabilities.

    The makeup artist had been working with Trisha Yearwood since ‘99. She occasionally worked for Brooks in 2017 but only started working for him more in 2019 when he heard she was having financial troubles. It was in 2019 when the alleged harassment began, she claims she tried confronting him and texting him she was uncomfortable with it, he brushed her aside. In one incident in 2020 she claims he took her phone and deleted some offending messages but she claims Yearwood overheard or was present during some of the conversations where he made sexual comments to her. The makeup artist DID leave in 2021. People magazine has some details: https://people.com/garth-brooks-sued-by-former-makeup-artist-alleging-rape-sexual-assault-8723096

  13. 80sMercedes says:

    Have y’all not seen that Brooks’ lawyer actually *publicly named* the woman filing the complaint? That’s dirty pool and does not make it look like he’s worthy of defending.

  14. yipyip says:

    I find it very hard to think that any female would make these statements unless it was true.
    No sane person would step into the publicity unless true, IMO.

  15. Veronica S. says:

    This one’s weird enough that I’m willing to wait to see what comes out in court. That’s not something I usually say, but he hasn’t had a lot of behavior that’s flashy in the way some predators are to hide their reality and has mostly been quiet outside the spotlight, so this one took me a little by surprise. I’m not going to go out of my way defending him, though. Wealth allows people to get away with a lot, so it’s entirely possible he’s just managed to keep a lot under wraps until now.

  16. JK says:

    I worked in law -if she can prove she didn’t have separate hotel room – that is credibility.

  17. VilleRose says:

    I am confused as to why the victim publicly named Garth in one of her filings when initially it was all anonymous? I’m all for her keeping her anonymity, it’s her right. But I also believe defendants should have that right too though I’m not well versed in the law admittedly. If it was supposed to be a strategic move, it backfired because he named her in retaliation which is a jerk move on his part. Anyways, I’m willing to wait and see what happens before I make up my mind. Hopefully this woman has receipts documenting the abuse.

  18. Jess says:

    They had an inappropriate relationship. If his wife wants to divorce him she would be well within her right. Looks like she’s standing by him though.