Friday, July 25, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 11 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Hawaii sex abuse suit against TV executive dropped

By Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 06:59 p.m. HST, Jun 25, 2014

A former aspiring actor and model withdrew another lawsuit Wednesday claiming an entertainment industry figure sexually abused him, a move that prompted one lawyer to say the four cases were built on lies and character smears.

Without explanation, attorneys for Michael Egan III filed papers in federal court in Honolulu voluntarily dismissing the case against former network TV executive Garth Ancier.

Los Angeles attorney Louise Ann Fernandez released a statement on behalf of Ancier saying the case against him was reckless and "grounded in lies."

"Just as this case imploded when the facts became known, any further legal maneuvers or gimmicks will fail because unsupported statements, falsehoods and character smears have no place in any court," the statement said.

Mark Gallagher, Egan's Hawaii attorney referred questions to Florida attorney Jeff Herman, who didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Three weeks ago, Egan withdrew a suit against David Neuman, another former TV executive. Two other lawsuits by Egan are pending against "X-Men" director Bryan Singer and theater producer Gary Goddard. Both men have denied the allegations.

Egan alleges that Singer abused him several times during trips to Hawaii in 1999, when Egan was 17. Egan also accuses Singer of abusing him earlier in California as part of a Hollywood sex ring. Similar allegations were made in the other lawsuits.

Ancier never visited the estate in Hawaii where Egan claimed he was molested, Fernandez has said.

In a motion filed in May to dismiss the case, attorneys for Ancier argued that the lawsuits were an attempt to "shake down Hollywood executives" and "part of transparent effort by a non-Hawaii resident -- who did not even set foot in Hawaii himself during the time in question -- to avail himself of Hawaii's extended statute of limitations."

The Associated Press does not typically identify alleged victims of sex abuse but is naming Egan because he has spoken publicly about his case.

Federal courts can handle cases when parties are from different states.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 11 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Mei mei wrote:
hmmm those ambulance chasing lawyers are now eating their words including this alleged "victim"... there should be a law against "smear" campaigns and slander... especially when they accuse people of molestation it is so detrimental, to the innocent individuals.
on June 25,2014 | 11:53AM
Johnmakiki wrote:
Extending the Statute of Limitations for such suits appears to have been an unwise decision, unless the Plaintiff can somehow prove his memory (or hers)only now remembered the event supposedly in question.
on June 25,2014 | 11:54AM
iwanaknow wrote:
So...........who was lying?
on June 25,2014 | 11:54AM
ryan02 wrote:
If he was smart, he would sue the estate of a rich person who already died, and therefore cannot contradict his lies -- oh, sorry, I meant truthful statements of fact. I wonder if his attorney will try that next. You heard it here first.
on June 25,2014 | 11:57AM
krusha wrote:
I'm guessing somebody got paid off.
on June 25,2014 | 12:02PM
st1d wrote:
on June 25,2014 | 01:00PM
AIEA25 wrote:
Why wait this long to sue someone 14 years .. they would belive kids in elementary or intermedaite .why would they belive someone in there 30's who has not any proof but hear say ..even with proof against the director your money would not be enough against his ..molestation is hard to prove if it is not file right away ...waiting this long is just a waste of time ...
on June 25,2014 | 02:15PM
AFishOutofH20 wrote:
He da kine of wat????????
on June 25,2014 | 02:34PM
AFishOutofH20 wrote:
on June 25,2014 | 02:34PM
SueH wrote:
So what does Hawaii's legislature do??? Extend the statute of limitations AGAIN for even LONGER....how stupid can that be???
on June 25,2014 | 08:41PM
ejkorvette wrote:
leave it to an incompetent lawyer from Hawaii, to launch a case based upon lies. Stick to cases that represent Hawaii more accurately, such as 1. lost malasada, suspect stolen. 2. plate lunch served cold from da wagon, malpratice. etc.
on June 25,2014 | 10:58PM
Breaking News
Political Radar
Wilhelmina Rise, et al.

Court Sense
Cold War

Political Radar
Climate change

Island Crafters

Warrior Beat
Empty pit

Political Radar

Political Radar
`Progressive hero’