A legal dispute involving filmmaker Tyler Perry and accuser Mario Rodriguez has taken a sharp turn, as distributor Lionsgate challenged Rodriguez’s claims in court filings.
The filings, submitted as part of a motion to dismiss, describe Rodriguez’s role in a Perry-produced film as minimal. The language used in the documents has drawn attention for its pointed tone.
Rodriguez has accused Perry of sexual misconduct and is seeking $77 million in damages. Perry has denied the allegations.
Court filings highlight minor film role
According to court documents obtained by media outlets, Lionsgate emphasized Rodriguez’s limited involvement in the 2016 film Boo! A Madea Halloween.
The company stated that Rodriguez “spent less than a week playing ‘Frat Guy #10,’” a reference to his credited role.
Lionsgate also argued that Rodriguez did not report any misconduct during production. The company said the alleged incidents occurred outside its jurisdiction.
In its filing, Lionsgate wrote that “now, ten years later, [Mario] is suing Lionsgate for negligent retention.”
The filing continued, stating the alleged conduct took place “at Tyler’s private residence,” not on a film set or company property.
The distributor further characterized the lawsuit as “a transparent ploy” to keep the case in a preferred court venue.
Allegations and responses
Rodriguez alleges he met Perry in 2015 through a gym connection. That introduction eventually led to a small acting role.
He claims Perry later made unwanted advances during private meetings. The lawsuit includes allegations of inappropriate touching and coercion tied to career opportunities.
Rodriguez also alleges that financial offers were made following some encounters. He says he ultimately cut off contact years later.
Perry has strongly denied the claims. In previous statements, he said the allegations have “no basis in fact or law.”
Court filings cited by the defense also suggest Rodriguez sought financial assistance from Perry before filing the lawsuit.
Lionsgate’s motion seeks to remove the company from the case entirely. The studio argues it had no involvement in the alleged incidents.
The dispute now centers on whether the distributor can be held liable for actions alleged to have occurred outside its productions.
The case remains ongoing, with no ruling yet on Lionsgate’s motion.