\n<\/p>\n
\n\tA California judge<\/span> has dismissed Nigel Lythgoe<\/a> as a defendant in the sexual assault lawsuit by two All American Girl <\/em>contestants.<\/p>\n \n\tAt a Friday afternoon hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Shirley K. Watkins ruled that the two Jane Doe plaintiffs who brought a joint lawsuit in January<\/a> do not qualify for revival of their claims under the law cited in their complaint. The two plaintiffs \u2014 women who competed on the reality game show executive produced by Lythgoe \u2014 alleged that Lythgoe forcibly groped and kissed them in 2003.<\/p>\n \n\tThe women filed their lawsuit under The Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act, a California statute that reopened the window for plaintiffs to file otherwise time-barred claims of sexual abuse involving corporate entities who helped conceal the abuse. The judge said the subdivision of the law cited by the Doe plaintiffs to revive their claims is \u201cinapplicable\u201d to Lythgoe because it applies to corporate entities only. She issued her ruling \u201cwithout leave to amend,\u201d meaning the Does are barred from ever adding Lythgoe back to the complaint that now moves forward with an unidentified \u201cRoe\u201d production company as the sole defendant.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cToday was a good day. We\u2019ve always said that these claims were meritless and now the Court has agreed. I hope and expect that this will be the first of many similar wins as I continue to fight to clear my name,\u201d Lythgoe said in a statement sent to Rolling Stone<\/em> after the ruling.<\/p>\n \n\tDuring the hearing, a lawyer for the Does tried but failed to get the judge to leave the door open for a future amendment with respect to Lythgoe. The lawyer, Sahar Malek, pointed out that a proposed law known as Assembly Bill 2587<\/a> is now pending in the California state legislature. If passed, it would specifically amend The Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act to make it clear that individuals can revive claims against individuals as well when a cover-up is alleged.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cWhether a law is pending or not, or whether it\u2019 going to pass or not, are complete hypothetical situations that would require rank speculation by this court,\u201d Lythgoe\u2019s lawyer, Amitabh Banerji, argued Friday. \u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s proper for the court to consider pending legislation that may not even pass.\u201d<\/p>\n