Lead: On December 25, Mario Rodriguez — an actor who appeared in 2016’s Boo! A Madea Halloween — filed a $77 million complaint alleging sexual assault and sexual battery by Tyler Perry and naming Lionsgate as a defendant. The suit, lodged in Los Angeles Superior Court, includes screenshots of text messages and a detailed account of an alleged assault tied to meetings around the production and a November 14, 2018 Beverly Hills dinner. Perry’s attorney Alex Spiro dismissed the filing as another attempt by the same lawyer to extract money. The complaint arrives amid an earlier, $260 million case against Perry that has taken an unusual path through state and federal courts.
Key Takeaways
- The complaint seeks $77,000,000 in damages and was filed on December 25, 2025, by Mario Rodriguez via attorney Jonathan Delshad.
- Rodriguez’s 23‑page filing cites text-message screenshots, alleged oral‑sex remarks and a detailed account of an alleged physical assault occurring years earlier.
- The suit names Lionsgate as a defendant, alleging the studio should have known about Perry’s conduct and failed to enforce morality clauses and safeguards.
- Perry’s lawyer Alex Spiro publicly called the case a repeat, calling it a “failed money grab” tied to prior litigation by the same counsel.
- This filing closely follows a separate $260 million complaint filed in June by Jonathan Delshad for Derek Dixon; Dixon’s case moved from California state court to federal court and then to federal court in Georgia.
- The complaint alleges an incident in which Perry “reached into Mr. Rodriguez’s underwear and grabbed his penis” and that $5,000 was pushed into Rodriguez’s pocket as he waited for an Uber.
- Rodriguez alleges psychological and economic harm, including PTSD, and seeks recovery tied to those injuries.
- If the Dixon and Rodriguez matters proceed without settlement, Perry could face major, concurrent civil litigation across jurisdictions in 2026.
Background
Mario Rodriguez, credited as a background actor in the 2016 film Boo! A Madea Halloween, filed a civil complaint on December 25, 2025, accusing Tyler Perry of sexual assault and battery and naming Lionsgate as a co‑defendant. The complaint — prepared by attorney Jonathan Delshad — contains a mix of narrative allegations and what the filing says are supporting text-message screenshots. Rodriguez’s lawyer frames the action as part of a broader pattern that the plaintiff says places Perry in a position to exploit hopeful actors.
The filing arrives after a separate, high‑profile lawsuit filed in June 2025 by Delshad for actor Derek Dixon seeking $260 million in damages for alleged sexual harassment and assault by Perry. That Dixon matter was removed from Los Angeles Superior Court to federal court, saw a motion to remand denied on December 12 by Judge John Walker, and was then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The path of the earlier case has raised questions among lawyers about forum selection and strategic litigation choices.
Main Event
Rodriguez’s December 25 complaint recounts several interactions with Perry linked to work on Boo! and later meetings intended to discuss additional opportunities. The filing references a November 14, 2018 dinner at Mastro’s Steakhouse in Beverly Hills and alleges subsequent encounters at Perry’s home. According to the complaint, one encounter involved explicit touching and remarks; the plaintiff describes being inebriated, waiting for an Uber and then having $5,000 placed in his pocket.
Attorney Jonathan Delshad submitted a 23‑page complaint that pairs narrative allegations with what the filing identifies as text exchanges and screenshots. The suit also argues that Lionsgate — identified in the complaint with a misspelling as “Lions Gate” — should have known of prior allegations against Perry and therefore bears responsibility for failing to enforce contractual safeguards. Lionsgate did not provide a public comment on the filing by press time.
Perry’s counsel Alex Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel and a high‑profile litigator for celebrities, issued an immediate rebuttal calling the new complaint another attempt by the same lawyer to obtain a payout after an earlier action. Spiro’s statement frames the filing as repetitive litigation rather than a newly substantiated claim. Rodriguez’s filing, by contrast, says the plaintiff was prompted to act after learning of the Dixon filing earlier in 2025 and believing he should tell his story.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, the Rodriguez complaint adds a second major civil claim against Perry within a single year and raises questions about venue, discovery overlap and the potential for coordinated litigation. Both the Dixon and Rodriguez suits were filed by counsel associated with Jonathan Delshad, which could create logistical and tactical linkages in discovery even if the matters proceed in different courts. If both suits move forward, Perry could face substantial witnesses and document demands in separate jurisdictions.
For Lionsgate, the case raises reputational and contract‑based issues. The complaint asserts the studio either knew or should have known about alleged misconduct and failed to enforce morality clauses or other safeguards. If a court allows agency/respondeat‑superior or negligent hiring/supervision theories to proceed against Lionsgate, studios might face heightened scrutiny about vetting and oversight in talent relationships.
From a damage perspective, plaintiffs seeking large statutory and compensatory awards seek to leverage public attention and the potential for jury sympathy. But high‑value filings do not guarantee corresponding recoveries; defense strategies often push for early dismissal, jurisdictional challenges, or limited damage exposure. The Dixon case’s procedural twists — removal, remand motions and transfer to Georgia — illustrate how jurisdictional battles can shape tempo and cost long before any trial.
Comparison & Data
| Case | Filed | Amount Sought | Current Forum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mario Rodriguez v. Tyler Perry & Lionsgate | Dec 25, 2025 | $77,000,000 | Los Angeles Superior Court (filed) |
| Derek Dixon v. Tyler Perry | June 2025 | $260,000,000 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia |
The table highlights the two headline figures and the divergent procedural postures. Rodriguez’s lawsuit is newly filed in Los Angeles Superior Court; Dixon’s case moved through removal and transfer and currently proceeds in federal court in Georgia. These differences matter: state and federal discovery rules, jury pools and motions practice vary and can materially affect the pace and outcome of litigation.
Reactions & Quotes
Defense counsel Alex Spiro issued a forceful, public statement seeking to frame the complaint as opportunistic and repetitive litigation by the same attorney who filed the Dixon matter. Spiro’s response is designed to influence both public perception and the early media narrative around the filing.
“Having recently failed in another matter against Mr. Perry, the very same lawyer has now made yet another demand…which will also be a failed money grab.”
Alex Spiro, attorney for Tyler Perry
That language underscores a defense strategy that emphasizes prior procedural setbacks and the plaintiff’s counsel’s litigation history. It is a common early tactic to attempt to undermine credibility before discovery begins; whether that strategy succeeds will depend on what evidence emerges in discovery and how judges rule on procedural challenges.
The complaint itself includes explicit, contested allegations that the plaintiff says are supported by contemporaneous texts and screenshots. Plaintiffs’ counsel argue those communications and alleged conduct create a factual record that should withstand initial challenges and justify discovery.
“Mr. Perry reached into Mr. Rodriguez’s underwear and grabbed his penis,”
Excerpt from Rodriguez complaint (allegation)
Defense teams will argue such passages are contested allegations that must be tested in discovery. Courts typically treat complaint allegations as the plaintiff’s position; factual determinations require further evidence, witness testimony and cross‑examination.
Rodriguez’s filing also asserts that Perry attempted to offer money and roles in exchange for sexual conduct, a claim intended to frame the alleged pattern as coercive. That allegation is central to the damages and liability theories the plaintiff will seek to prove.
“When Perry became aware that Rodriguez was going to file this action, Perry once again reached out to Rodriguez…that Perry was feeling betrayed by Rodriguez.”
Excerpt from Rodriguez complaint (allegation)
The filing says a June 18 text about Dixon’s case prompted Rodriguez to act, and that subsequent outreach from Perry is part of the factual narrative. The absence of one specific post‑notification text in the public filing is notable and is flagged in our Unconfirmed section below.
Unconfirmed
- The December 25 filing references a text exchange allegedly sent by Perry after Rodriguez decided to file; that specific post‑notification text is not reproduced in the public complaint.
- The complaint alleges Lionsgate should have known of prior misconduct; no public corporate statement or internal documents confirming awareness have been produced by the studio.
- The alleged $5,000 cash exchange is described in the complaint but has not been independently verified outside the plaintiff’s account.
Bottom Line
The Rodriguez suit adds a significant, contemporaneous claim to the legal challenges facing Tyler Perry and implicates Lionsgate in a negligence theory tied to talent oversight. Both the legal and reputational stakes are high: plaintiffs seek large damages and aim to marshal contemporaneous communications to support their narrative, while the defense is already testing the plaintiffs’ credibility and procedural posture.
Practically speaking, these cases may take years of pretrial litigation, motions and discovery before jury decisions — if any — arrive. The Dixon matter’s procedural journey shows how jurisdictional fights can consume months and shape outcomes; Rodriguez’s new filing ensures Perry will confront high‑stakes litigation on multiple fronts unless early settlements or dismissals occur.