Nigel Lythgoe Dismissed as Defendant in ‘All American Girl’ Lawsuit

A California judge has dismissed Nigel Lythgoe as a defendant in the sexual assault lawsuit by two All American Girl contestants.

At a Friday afternoon hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Shirley K. Watkins ruled that the two Jane Doe plaintiffs who brought a joint lawsuit in January do not qualify for revival of their claims under the law cited in their complaint. The two plaintiffs — women who competed on the reality game show executive produced by Lythgoe — alleged that Lythgoe forcibly groped and kissed them in 2003.

The women filed their lawsuit under The Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act, a California statute that reopened the window for plaintiffs to file otherwise time-barred claims of sexual abuse involving corporate entities who helped conceal the abuse. The judge said the subdivision of the law cited by the Doe plaintiffs to revive their claims is “inapplicable” to Lythgoe because it applies to corporate entities only. She issued her ruling “without leave to amend,” meaning the Does are barred from ever adding Lythgoe back to the complaint that now moves forward with an unidentified “Roe” production company as the sole defendant.

“Today was a good day. We’ve always said that these claims were meritless and now the Court has agreed. I hope and expect that this will be the first of many similar wins as I continue to fight to clear my name,” Lythgoe said in a statement sent to Rolling Stone after the ruling.

During the hearing, a lawyer for the Does tried but failed to get the judge to leave the door open for a future amendment with respect to Lythgoe. The lawyer, Sahar Malek, pointed out that a proposed law known as Assembly Bill 2587 is now pending in the California state legislature. If passed, it would specifically amend The Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act to make it clear that individuals can revive claims against individuals as well when a cover-up is alleged.

“Whether a law is pending or not, or whether it’ going to pass or not, are complete hypothetical situations that would require rank speculation by this court,” Lythgoe’s lawyer, Amitabh Banerji, argued Friday. “I don’t think it’s proper for the court to consider pending legislation that may not even pass.”

The judge agreed. “I’m not going to make a decision based upon hypotheticals that might occur in the future,” the judge said. “There are no grounds at this time to grant leave to amend.” The judge said that if the proposed legislation is passed and is retroactive, the Does could “decide what to do then.”

Malek said one option could be to file a separate lawsuit under the new law and then move to consolidate it with the current lawsuit against the corporate entity — but that would be more taxing on the “resources of the court.” The judge didn’t budge.

It was back in January that Paula Abdul first sued Lythgoe and the companies behind American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance with claims the 74-year-old producer sexually harassed and assaulted her multiple times while she was hosting or otherwise working on the reality competition shows. She claimed Lythgoe trapped her in an elevator, forced her against the wall, grabbed her genitals and breasts, and forced “his tongue down her throat.”

Lythgoe vehemently denied the allegations. One of his lawyers called them “purely fictional” in paperwork filed shortly before Abdul’s lawyer announced at a hearing in April that she’d reached tentative settlement agreements with American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance.

The two Jane Does from All American Girl filed their lawsuit next. A third Jane Doe sued in February with claims Lythgoe groped, kissed, and digitally penetrated her in his chauffeured car in 2016. A fourth Jane Doe sued in March with claims Lythgoe sexually battered her at his home in 2018.

The three remaining lawsuits against Lythgoe all cite the revival window opened by California’s Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act, but they include allegations on or after January 1, 2009, so they’re not dependent on the section of the law that was ruled on by Judge Watkins on Friday. That subsection was critical to the show contestants’ lawsuit because it revives any claim, no matter how old, as long as a corporate defendant is accused of engaging in a cover-up.