Former girlfriend of Tiger Woods filed a request at a Florida state court to reconsider a ruling which sent her public dispute against the famous golfer to private arbitral proceedings instead of a public court.
The attorney representing Erica Herman submitted the request on Wednesday. She was seeking to revive Erica’s case before a judge of state court after she had previously accused him of harassment and disclosed ugly details about Woods, her ex-boyfriend.
In the request, it is stated that “at least four matters were either overlooked or not taken into consideration” by the decision of Judge Elizabeth Metzger dated May 17,. Herman’s lawyer said that Woods won the case, but Herman didn’t receive a fair hearing.
The document filed by Herman’s attorney, Benjamin Hodas, stated that the U.S. Supreme Court consistently holds that a party can’t be forced to arbitrate unless it is proven that they agreed to do so. This means that, in this case, with no evidence on record, arbitration shouldn’t be compelled or, at the very least, an evidentiary proceeding should be held.
What else was the request?
Hodas said Herman also made “meritorious” objections to Woods documents, which were not ruled upon by the judge. Herman also did not acknowledge the existence of a contract to arbitrate the dispute. He said Woods also “couldn’t meet his burden of establishing the contract he sought to enforce.”
The contract in question was the non-disclosure (NDA) agreement that Woods’ lawyer said Woods and he had signed in August 2017. Herman claimed recently in court documents that it was not her memory of signing the NDA which required her to keep private information about her relationship with Woods confidential, and to resolve disputes in private arbitration rather than public court.
Woods’ lawyer responded that the NDA was “valid at face value” and the court agreed with this in its ruling on May 17, noting Herman had never denied signing it.
The judge ruled that on May 17, “Importantly Herman hasn’t ‘denied,’ her signature on the NDA.” “Herman has also not ‘denied,’ that the NDA’s clear terms require the resolution by binding, confidential arbitration of Woods’ disputes, claims, or controversies.”
Her attorney, however, is still pursuing her case.
The request for arbitration filed on Wednesday stated that “on reconsideration, it should conclude that no evidence exists to support a conclusion that parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, and therefore deny the Defendant’s motion to compel.” The Court could also reconsider its order and schedule a hearing with evidence, followed by appropriate discovery.
What’s the story?
This is part of a bigger domestic dispute that stems from the breakup of Herman and Woods in October. Herman claimed Woods had arranged for her to be locked out of Woods’ house on Florida’s Treasure Coast. She filed a suit shortly thereafter, claiming that her removal violated an oral agreement to stay in the residence for a few more years. In this lawsuit she claimed damages of more than $30,000,000. It was not against Woods, but the trust he set up for his house.
Woods tried to force the matter into private arbitration, but Herman sued him again in March. In the second lawsuit, Herman sought to have her released from the NDA by citing a new federal law that invalidates NDAs in cases involving sexual assault and harassment.
Herman did not get into detail about the sexual harassment allegations until her attorney filed a document in court on May 5 that stated Woods had pursued a relationship with her while she was an employee of his restaurant, and forced her to either sign an NDA or lose her job. Herman was employed by Woods at The Woods in Jupiter, Florida before she left in 2020.
The judge said Herman did not go far enough in making her case if she wanted federal laws to be applied.
The judge ruled that Herman had “the opportunity to provide factual specificity” for any claims relating sexual assault or harassment. “However she hasn’t done so.”
Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. E-mail: [email protected]
