Sexual abuse lawsuit against Prince Andrew can move forward, judge rules
NEW YORK — A federal judge gave the green light Wednesday to a lawsuit against Prince Andrew by an American woman who says he sexually abused her when she was 17.
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote in an opinion that Andrew's lawyers failed to successfully challenge the constitutionality of the lawsuit Virginia Roberts Giuffre filed against him in August.
His lawyers had said that the lawsuit lacked specificity and was disqualified by a deal she reached in 2009 with lawyers for Jeffrey Epstein.
"Today’s decision by Judge Kaplan denying Prince Andrew’s effort to dismiss Virginia Giuffre’s case against him is another important step in Virginia‘s heroic and determined pursuit of justice as a survivor of sex trafficking," said Sigrid McCawley, one of Giuffre's team of lawyers, in a statement obtained by USA TODAY.
Prince Andrew's lawyers did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday. Buckingham Palace didn't immediately respond to The Associated Press' request for comment, but told U.K. news agency PA Media that it "would not comment on what is an ongoing legal matter."
That 2009 settlement of a lawsuit Giuffre filed against Epstein was reached a decade before Epstein killed himself at a Manhattan lockup as he awaited a sex trafficking trial.
Previous:Prince Andrew judge seems skeptical that secret settlement invalidates sexual-abuse lawsuit
The Duke of York, 61, Queen Elizabeth II's second son, is being sued by Giuffre, 38, who alleges that Andrew raped and sexually assaulted her in New York in 2001 when she was 17. She claims Andrew's friend Epstein trafficked her to him and that the prince knew it at the time.
The prince has vehemently denied Giuffre's accusations since she began making them publicly in January 2015. Andrew's legal team has argued the claims are false and that her lawsuit is aimed at achieving "another payday at his expense."
But Kaplan wrote that there were substantial indications in the $500,000 settlement that Epstein and Giuffre did not clearly intend for language in their settlement deal to “directly,” “primarily," or “substantially” benefit someone such as the prince. He noted that the prince was not a party to the agreement.
He also said the agreement was “far from a model of clear and precise drafting.”
The judge's findings mirrored comments he made during oral arguments by both sides last week when he was particularly dismissive of the arguments made on the prince's behalf.
Kaplan noted that he was required by law at this stage of the litigation to assume the allegations made by Giuffre are true.
“The law prohibits the Court from considering at this stage of the proceedings defendant’s efforts to cast doubt on the truth of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations, even though his efforts would be permissible at trial,” Kaplan said.
Epstein, 66, killed himself in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting a sex trafficking trial. Ghislaine Maxwell, 60, a longtime friend to both Andrew and Epstein, was recently convicted of sex trafficking and conspiracy charges in federal court in New York. (Her lawyers may seek a new trial due to possible failure by some jurors to disclose past experiences with sexual abuse.)
Giuffre’s allegations against Andrew were not a part of either criminal case. She was not called to testify in the Maxwell trial but a witness who did testify claimed she was introduced to Epstein by Giuffre.
Assuming the Andrew civil case goes to trial, Kaplan has scheduled it for the last quarter of 2022, depending on the pandemic.
Legal analysts say this latest setback in Andrew's attempt to rid himself of Giuffre's lawsuit leaves him with fewer options and greater risks just as Britain is getting ready to mark the queen's Platinum Jubilee – 70 years on the throne – with a four day celebration in June.
"He can appeal the decision and that can delay the process," says Nick Goldstone, who heads dispute resolution team in the London office of the international law firm Ince."I don't think he can win but it can delay." Meanwhile, the case would continue to cast a "dark shadow" on the monarchy in Britain, Goldstone told USA TODAY.
The ruling itself shows the judge "soundly rejected on persuasive grounds" Andrew's lawyers' multiple arguments for dismissing the lawsuit, including the 2009 settlement, Goldstone said. So far, Andrew's legal team has demonstrated they're willing to "argue the inarguable."
"It's all been pretty desperate stuff to block the proceedings to date, but he could try to settle case (out of court)," Goldstone says. "That would mean he would have to engage in the discovery process and that in turn would mean he would have to surrender for deposition, which could be problematic for him. So if he settles, he would need to settle before being deposed."
It's not viable for Andrew to refuse to participate in the case because he's already surrendered to the jurisdiction of the New York court, Goldstone said. Under international law, "that would make it difficult to avoid the consequences of a default judgment against him," and such a judgment could be enforceable in the United Kingdom, meaning Giuffre could collect damages from him even though it might take time.
The worst case scenario: "He engages (in the case), incriminating evidence comes out, he fights and loses, and while in the U.S. giving evidence (in a trial) he’s arrested," Goldstone said. "He can't be compelled to appear (in New York) but how can he sensibly participate in a trial otherwise?"
More:Prince Andrew accuser’s settlement with Jeffrey Epstein unsealed, her lawyer says it's 'irrelevant'
Contributing: Larry Neumeister and Tom Hays, Associated Press and Maria Puente, USA TODAY
