Denver judge throws out DJ David Mueller’s case against Taylor Swift

Sketches of Taylor Swift appearing in court

If you’ve been reading the coverage of the Groping DJ trial throughout last week, you have probably realized that the man who allegedly groped Taylor Swift in 2013 didn’t have much of a case. He sued her because he claimed she had destroyed his career and cast him publicly as a groping pervert. She countersued, saying that she never named him or demanded that the radio station fire him, and oh by the way, he actually did sexually assault her and she has her own witnesses and everything. DJ David Mueller’s case consisted of “NUH-UH” and “prove it” and “Taylor destroyed me for no reason.” And on Friday, after all of the witnesses were called, the judge told Mueller that he had no case against Taylor.

A Denver judge has dismissed the case brought against Taylor Swift by former radio host David Mueller who claimed the pop star essentially ruined his career. U.S. District Judge William Martinez said on Friday in court Mueller has insufficient evidence to prove the pop star got him fired, PEOPLE confirms. Swift got visibly emotional in the courtroom after the ruling. Mueller had sought $3 million in damages from Swift. His case against Swift’s mother, Andrea, was not dismissed and Swift’s case against Mueller for sexual assault remains ongoing.

In his ruling, the judge said Mueller had filed claims of interference with contract against Swift personally rather than 13 Management, the company under which Andrea Swift and Frank Bell — who works with her management team — are employed. “Simply put, it is far too late for the plaintiff to argue that he had filed the wrong claims against the wrong people,” he said.

When Swift’s attorney filed the motion to dismiss Friday afternoon, Mueller’s attorney tried to amend his initial claim saying Bell and Andrea were acting on Swift’s behalf as her friend and mother.

“Court will not permit amendments at this time,” said the judge. Judge Martinez also accused Mueller and his team of “new and still poorly articulated claims of vicarious liability.”

The judge also said Mueller had a clause in his contract to extend his employment at KYGO for another year. Judge Martinez ruled the defendants were not aware of this clause at the time they reported the alleged assault to the station. To support this claim of tortious interference, Mueller would have had to prove Swift’s team knew about this clause in his contract and that their report of the alleged assault would lead to his dismissal. The judge ruled there was not enough evidence to support that. Mueller was also claiming damages and loss of future earnings. The judge ruled that the plaintiff had not met this claim for future earnings because he said he wasn’t asking for a specific amount and was leaving it up to the jury to decide an appropriate amount.

The judge ruled Mueller can still claim for the five months left on his contract at the time of termination but that “lost profits are only claimable if they can be proven with reasonable certainty,” said Judge Martinez. “Damages cannot be based on speculations or estimates.”

Swift initially looked nervous but became less so once the judge began to reveal rulings in her favor. The star dabbed at her eyes with tissues and was visibly relieved as she turned away from the gallery. The judge concluded Andrea testified she was angry about the alleged assault and wanted Mueller terminated from his job but that Swift herself had only confided in her mother and didn’t participate in the decision to contact KYGO.

Along with Mueller’s remaining claims that Andrea and Bell’s actions got him fired, the jury is also expected to rule on Swift’s counterclaim of sexual assault on Monday after closing statements are given by both sides.

[From People]

Yay! This is good news, and I think the judge’s actions are not only proper, but the actions will likely influence the jury, don’t you think? The judge flat-out told the jury that Mueller didn’t prove sh-t, and that his only real argument was about wrongful termination, and there’s a limit to how much Mueller could conceivably get in damages. And Taylor wouldn’t have to pay any of it, if damages are found. Except she probably would pay it, because if the jury does say that Mueller is entitled to lost wages from the time left on his contract, that means Andrea Swift would have to pay (and by extension, Taylor). That being said, I feel like the jury is going to laugh at Mueller in the end. He’s (ALLEGEDLY!) a groping, litigious douchebag. Rip ‘em a new one, Swifty.

Bella Hadid poses for a fan as she carries a bouquet of roses after a photoshoot at MILK studios in New York City

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

46 Responses to “Denver judge throws out DJ David Mueller’s case against Taylor Swift”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lahdidahbaby says:

    Whew, good, now Mueller can focus on the Russia investigation.

  2. Horse Marine says:

    Good. The pig thought he’d get some easy money from his rich victim. Not so. Disgusting human garbage.

  3. Fiorucci says:

    She was so on point and quick witted! This was awesome. Great example for her female fans of any age. It will be funny and great if he has to give her one dollar

  4. Ninks says:

    I saw a comment on twitter on Friday after the dismissal that made this whole thing even better: From the moment Taylor decided to counter-sue him, Mueller couldn’t drop the lawsuit against her, he had to continue, which means that he has to continue paying his attorney’s fees. Even now that the case against her is dismissed and he must realize he’s not going to win anything, he still has to keep the case going. It’s just hilarious to me to know that he’s sitting there in court being destroyed by Taylor and her team, watching his money being flushed down the toilet and being utterly helpless to call a halt to it.

    • Giddy says:

      I love this! Douchebag predator goes broke trying to sue his victim? Perfect!

    • Jack Daniels is my patronus says:

      Unless his lawyer took on contingency because they assumed she would settle quickly.

      • QueenB says:

        Would seem more likely. The lawyer has nothing to gain with this, the only thing would have been a chunk of a settlement from someone wealthy like Taylor.

    • lucy2 says:

      Disgusting enough that he assaulted her, but then sued and blamed her for his problems!
      Sometimes things actually work out the proper way, it seems.

  5. Nicole says:

    Nailed it

  6. Elizabeth Rose says:

    What’s even better is that her countersuit is for an unprecedented $1. Message delivered and hopefully received.

  7. Naptime says:

    He probably won’t fight her countersuit, why would he? He’s only got one dollar at stake. My guess is also that this third-rate lawyer was hired on a “you don’t win, you don’t pay” basis. This creep isn’t wealthy and a civil case like this would involve a $50,000 retainer to a proper lawyer just to get started.

    • Fanny says:

      The jury doesn’t need to award her what she asked for. If they are really outraged, they can award her more. And I’m assuming legal fees are going to be a separate issue. I’m sure Taylor’s lawyers are going to cost a few hundred thousand dollars and that’s probably going to be on this douchebag.

    • K says:

      Can’t costs be awarded against a losing party in the States? Here, even if you’re on a no win no fee arrangement with your own lawyers, you can still get lumbered with the other side’s costs if you lose.

      • Tina says:

        Only in Alaska and Texas (and in the latter, only under particular circumstances). You can always opt out of the American rule in a contract situation, but for tort cases such as this one, each party pays for their own attorneys’ fees in the other 48 states.

  8. virginfangirl2 says:

    He could still win a small settlement from her mom and some other guy associated with this case (maybe her bodyguard?) but a huge win for Taylor.

    • jetlagged says:

      The other guy is the person on Taylor’s management team responsible for handling their business relationships with radio stations. He’s the one that actually made the phone calls reporting the incident.

  9. MeowuiRose says:

    Ok, please dont yell at me because I’m genuinely asking but sexual assault seems like a strong term for grabbing someone’s butt. The DJ is 100% in the wrong and had no business touching her. She should win the case against him. Im not excusing his behavior in any WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. If someone grabbed my butt I would not feel sexually assaulted. Id be pissed and would tell the person off. Is there a legal reason its not regular assault. What about it being her butt makes it sexual? Please dont yell and hate on me. Im looking to understand better.


    • Lexter says:

      He put his hand up under her skirt and maintained lengthy connection with her bare bottom. It isn’t her arm or her ankle – it’s her arse. It is sexual assault for that and many other reasons.

    • Fanny says:

      If you don’t understand why touching someone’s butt is sexual, I don’t really know what to say to you.

      I mean, go stick your hand under your mother’s skirt and grab her bare butt right now. A big handful. Or go find your Dad and stick your hand down his pants and grab his bare butt. You feel totally cool with that? Not sexual at all? Same as a handshake?

      • Fiorucci says:

        LOL you got it fanny! Smh

      • bettyrose says:

        Gah! Fanny those visuals . . . so gross . . but so powerful. I may use your example in the future.

      • Liberty says:

        Fanny, you are awesome, I am laughing but nodding!!

      • Horse Marine says:

        This. What a curious question to ask. It’s… an ass. Not a leg or a shoulder, an ASS. Breasts, butts and genitals are not in the same category as say, an ankle or an elbow. They are sexual. They inspire arousal, they are often used for sexual activity, and we cover them in public. They are private parts.

  10. Jenn says:

    I don’t understand the wrongful dismissal claim? surely being accused of sexual assault would fall under some part of his employment contract as being grounds for firing?

    • WingKingdom says:

      I have the same question! How can reporting a sexual assault that results in him being fired be something he can sue for?! Is this case sending the message that we are not to report being sexually assaulted at work, lest we get sued by our assaulter? This is awful!

      • bettyrose says:

        I don’t understand how he could sue the accuser. The employer should have every right to fire him if the employee’s behavior hurts the employer’s reputation. Even so, in such a case the employee can sue to make the employer document that the behavior was harmful to the employer. But I don’t understand how he could sue Taylor Swift. Well, I guess anyone can file a lawsuit about anything and risk a countersuit and judge dismissal, as happened here. I doubt any lawyer thought they could be successful here, but maybe from the lawyer’s point of view the publicity was good for their own business. IDK.

      • jammypants says:

        Male privilege and entitlement. He can’t process that you can’t treat women like objects. So he makes himself a victim.

    • Liberty says:

      A random DJ sticking his hand up under a pop star’s skirt at a photo op, and hanging on, in front of cameras, would seem to be all kinds of stupid and seriously messed up. And clearly far from being a critical thinker. So yeah, seems like this knob will sue for anything, and will probably resurface someday to claim one of her songs is about their ass grab break-up, and sue for being her unwilling muse. I have never been a TS fan, meh, but I am cheering for her and her mom hard on this.

  11. MeowuiRose says:

    My question was why it wouldn’t be considered regular assult vs sexual ok. I didnt ask why it was wrong. I was trying to better understand. I was trying to learn and instead @Fanny over here is being dismissive and using hyperbole. I dont think you can say across the board touching someone’s butt is sexual. Its an asshole, dick move for sure but like I was saying I wouldn’t feel sexually assaulted. Thats what I was trying to better understand. But thank you @Fanny for gracing me with your condescending, righteous and dismissive anwser.

    Jeeze louise, I used to love commenting on here and reading the comments but now its just ppl being know it alls, self righteous and jumping on someone if they dont immediately agree with the collective. Most of the OG commenters on here are great, open minded, understanding and willing to have conversations with ppl that have another point of view. Its disappointing that a site Ive been reading for years is turning into an intolerant place. That is my opinion.

    • Fanny says:

      You *asked* for an explanation of why grabbing someone’s butt is sexual assault rather than simple assault. The DJ stuck his hand under Taylor’s skirt and grabbed her bare butt. Imagine yourself doing the exact same thing to your mother or father and that should give you an idea of why it’s an inappropriate *sexual* act.

      I should have known better when you started your post “don’t yell at me” that you were here to troll.

    • Oh-Dear says:

      the butt, genitals and mouth are considered sexual in the court of law. There are/were laws against sodomy, so I imagine that sets precedent. I also think because each are used for sexual stimulation (sexualizing body parts like feet and hair are considered fetishes, so they would not fall under sexual body parts). I am not sure if that helps, and it is only my perspective.

    • Fiorucci says:

      I guess youve been lucky enough to have never been groped. I’ve Never been kicked punched or slapped by a stranger (other than one mugging where I was also groped and bear sprayed) because that’s rare and there’s no benefit to the attacker to go around grabbing on people’s arms or ribs or legs. Been groped several times always by men. Wonder why it was never a woman who did that to me. (I’m a woman.)

      Sure, it’s just like any body part. So when you meet your friend’s cute kid or your friend’s new boyfriend /girlfriend pat her /his butt in a friendly way instead of giving them a hug or high five, it’s not sexual at all. I’m sure this accused man would do the same to Clint eastwood, or Chris rock it had nothing to do with TS being a 20 year old female with a nice figure. I’m sure he was not sexually attracted to her.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I think legally “assault” means violence. “Sexual assault” is a different thing. “Battery” is a threat of violence.

      As Defined by Justice Department:
      “Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.”

      This act certainly fits that definition.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      because fondling without permission is considered sexual assault and grabbing someone’s bare buttocks and maintaining contact is fondling.

    • attackofthekb says:

      Fanny is right. You asked and she answered.

  12. Tw says:

    This country elected a groper to the office of the Presidency. A jury of deplorables could still sabotage Swifty.

  13. Sara says:

    Another reason to disregard anything from People: Tortious? No, it is tortuous. They can’t even find competent proofreaders. I distrust everything coming out of that dumb mouthpiece of publicists. They apparently have a staff of little twenty-something know-nothings who have almost no meaningful education. People is staffed by the completely uneducated and is targeted at the equally ignorant. Ignore it. I’m annoyed that celebitchy continues to cite it.