- Share this article on Facebook
- Share this article on Twitter
- Share this article on Email
- Show additional share options
- Share this article on Print
- Share this article on Comment
- Share this article on Whatsapp
- Share this article on Linkedin
- Share this article on Reddit
- Share this article on Pinit
- Share this article on Tumblr
Charlie Sheen and his ex Brett Rossi are headed to arbitration — to determine whether Rossi’s lawsuit against Sheen will be decided by an arbitrator or a judge.
If it sounds convoluted, that’s because it is.
Rossi is suing Sheen for assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from the actor’s admission of an HIV diagnosis.
But when the two first met in 2013, she signed a non-disclosure agreement that included a mandatory arbitration provision.
Sheen’s attorneys, Marty Singer and Andrew Brettler, asked the court to send the matter to arbitration, while Rossi’s attorneys argue the entire agreement is illegal and the validity of the contract should be decided by a judge.
Los Angeles Superior Court judge Michelle Williams Court tentatively ruled last week in favor of Sheen’s petition to compel arbitration, and now she’s made it official.
“The arbitration agreement expressly indicates that any questions concerning whether or not the agreement should be resolved by way of arbitration are left to the arbitrator,” Court writes.
According to Court’s ruling, the pair signed a non-disclosure agreement with a broad arbitration agreement in November 2013 that “purports to govern ‘any and all disputes, claims or controversies between us of any kind or nature whatsoever.’”
Rossi’s attorney Stuart Esner argues the NDA doesn’t apply to her claims because it was designed to ensure she didn’t disclose that she was meeting Sheen to exchange sex for money and their subsequent relationship is not governed by the contract because they did not anticipate a future relationship at the time of the agreement.
Esner also takes it a step further by arguing that because the purpose of the NDA was to facilitate sex for money, the entire agreement is illegal.
Court disagrees with both arguments.
“The agreement, on its face, indicates that its purpose is to allow Plaintiff to interact with Defendant, and in exchange, she must promise to keep the interactions confidential,” Court writes. “The scope of the NDA is not limited to contact on a particular day or to a particular period of time.”
Sheen’s attorneys also sought to compel arbitration pursuant to a settlement agreement between the two, but Court says she doesn’t need to address that issue because the arbitration agreement in the NDA precludes it.
So an arbitrator will now decide if Rossi’s claims against Sheen must be resolved in arbitration or if they should be sent back to a judge.
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day