A judge has ruled that the child sex abuse claims brought by Julia Misley against Steven Tyler, the lead singer of Aerosmith, will move forward in California. This decision follows a series of hearings regarding the allegations, which Misley claims date back to the 1970s. While the California claims are allowed to proceed, the judge has dismissed related claims from other states, specifically Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts.
During a court session on Wednesday, Los Angeles County Judge Patricia A. Young indicated her intent to allow the California claims to head to trial. She noted, “I’m not moving the trial,” and suggested that Misley’s legal team might consider amending their complaint to focus solely on the California allegations. Judge Young emphasized the importance of respecting the laws against child sex abuse in each state, reaffirming that California has a vested interest in such matters.
Misley’s lawsuit, initially filed in December 2022 and first reported by Rolling Stone, asserts that Tyler sexually abused her starting in 1973, when she was a high school sophomore and he was 25. Tyler has denied these allegations and sought to have the entire lawsuit dismissed, arguing that the age of consent was 16 in Massachusetts, where much of their relationship took place. He contended that Massachusetts law should apply even in the context of their interactions in other states.
The judge partially sided with Misley, acknowledging that her claims of abuse occurring in California were strong enough to warrant further legal action. “Even if it’s legal in Massachusetts, California has an interest in saying, ‘OK, that’s fine, but it’s illegal here,’” Judge Young stated during the hearing on December 18.
While the California claims will proceed, the judge determined that the statutes of limitations for the alleged abuses in Oregon and Washington had expired and could not be revived by the recent California legislation known as the Child Victims Act. This 2019 law temporarily lifted the statute of limitations, providing survivors of childhood sexual abuse a three-year window to file claims.
Misley alleges that her relationship with Tyler included several disturbing incidents, such as being invited backstage in 1973, shortly after her sixteenth birthday, and having sexual encounters in Oregon and Washington, where the age of consent was 18 at that time. She further claims that Tyler brought her to California for an awards show, where he subjected her to a humiliating experience in a hotel elevator.
In her deposition, Misley described feeling “treated like a sex toy” and expressed the emotional toll the relationship took on her. She stated, “I was treated like a pet, like a thing, and it was humiliating.” These claims form the basis of her request for damages related to emotional distress.
Tyler’s reflections on their relationship, detailed in his 2011 memoir, indicate an awareness of their significant age difference. He described a guardianship arrangement that allowed him to take Misley out of state without facing legal repercussions. In his memoir, he recounted moments such as their sexual encounter on a flight and an incident in a hotel, where they were caught by an unsuspecting family.
Initially, Tyler’s legal defense included claims of immunity due to his role as Misley’s caretaker or guardian, a position he later abandoned. Legal experts have criticized this defense as weak and unfounded. As proceedings unfold, Misley has shared her story publicly, detailing the family trauma that preceded her relationship with Tyler and the challenges she faced in the rock and roll culture.
The court’s ruling marks a significant step for Misley, reaffirming her right to pursue justice in California while highlighting the complexities of addressing historical abuse claims across different jurisdictions. The case is expected to draw considerable attention as it approaches trial, reflecting broader conversations about accountability and the legal framework surrounding sexual abuse survivors.
