Joey Ryan (real name Joseph R. Meehan) filed a second lawsuit against women who came out against him during the Speaking Out movement on September 24th, according to a report from PWInsider.com who note that in the second lawsuit, filed before the City of Los Angeles’ Central District names one woman, as well as ten additional “Jane Doe’s” to be named.

The report notes that the 38-page lawsuit features a lot of background material on Joey Ryan, his career and social media that is identical to the other lawsuit that was filed, before specifically noting that this woman took to Twitter to make accusations about Ryan’s alleged sexually abusive nature towards her and referring to Ryan’s other alleged victims, all of which the lawsuit describes as six defamatory statements about Ryan. The lawsuit also alleges that the sixth statement was specifically intended to prevent Plaintiff from earning any income through wrestling and destroy the credibility of his denial in Plaintiff’s video, i.e., that Plaintiff did in fact assault Defendant. REDACTED’s sixth statement was intended by Defendant to reach out to any of Defendant’s Instagram followers and those interested in Plaintiff’s services that he was offering through YouTube, Patreon and Cameo, etc, to not use those services. The lawsuit alleges that this woman used Twitter to defame Ryan, by publishing the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein, which included that (1) Plaintiff assaulted Defendant; (2) Plaintiff committed a sexual battery on Defendant; (3) Plaintiff committed (1) and (2) in a manner that would be considered a felony; (4) Defendant engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff without Defendant’s consent; and/or (5) Defendant was forced by Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with Plaintiff, forced meaning the use of fear, threat and intimidation.

The lawsuit also alleges that on information and belief, the Defendant did use other social media websites to write and thereby publish the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein and that prior to publishing the defamatory statements, the Defendant was fully aware that Twitter and the other social media websites used to publish Defendant’s defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein had members and subscribers located worldwide and were connected to the professional wrestling industry, because Defendant was a user, subscriber and account holder of Twitter and had Twitter handles and thus understood how Twitter and social media websites worked. The lawsuit alleged that prior to publishing the defamatory statements, the Defendant was fully aware that Twitter had a membership of approximately in excess of three hundred million persons and that by publishing the defamatory statements, the defamatory statements would be read by hundreds of thousands of Twitter’s membership, because Defendant was a user, subscriber and account holder of Twitter and had Twitter handles and thus understood how Twitter and social media websites worked, while prior to the publishing of the defamatory statements, the Defendant was fully aware that publishing the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein would reach the eyes and ears of at least hundreds to thousands of persons and that after the Defendant did publish the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein, that the published defamatory statements did reach the eyes and ears of at least hundreds to thousands of persons, because the Defendant was a user, subscriber and account holder of Twitter and had Twitter handles and thus understood how Twitter and social media websites worked.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant published the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein, fully aware that Plaintiff lived in Los Angeles, California and that Plaintiff was a professional wrestler and promoter in the State of California and that Defendant was fully aware that Plaintiff was a principal of Bar Wrestling and that Bar Wrestling promoted wrestling matches in bars in Los Angeles, California, that the Defendant was fully aware that Defendant’s defamatory statements described above and incorporated by reference herein would cause a negative effect on Plaintiff as a professional wrestler and wrestling promoter, i.e., Defendant intended that the defamatory statements would prevent Plaintiff from practicing as a professional wrestler and further wrestling promotions and that in addition, the Defendant was fully aware that because of the defamatory statements, that the Plaintiff’s reputation would be damaged in the community of California and the virtual community located in the worldwide web that were related to Plaintiff’s as a professional wrestler and wrestling promoter. The lawsuit adds that it was, is and has always been untrue and false that (1) Plaintiff assaulted Defendant; (2) Plaintiff committed a sexual battery on Defendant; (3) Plaintiff committed (1) and (2) in a manner that would be considered a felony; (4) Defendant engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff without Defendant’s consent; and/or (5) Defendant was forced by Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with Plaintiff, forced meaning the use of fear, threat and intimidation. The lawsuit alleges that the Defendant’s defamatory statements were not privileged and that the Plaintiff did not consent to the publication of the defamatory statements and that the Plaintiff in fact implored the Defendant to stop the publication the defamatory statements and that the Defendant responded by repeating more statements that (1) Plaintiff assaulted Defendant; (2) Plaintiff committed a sexual battery on Defendant; (3) Plaintiff committed (1) and (2) in a manner that would be considered a felony; (4) Defendant engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff without Defendant’s consent; and/or (5) Defendant was forced by Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with Plaintiff, forced meaning the use of fear, threat and intimidation.

The lawsuit also alleges that prior to publishing the defamatory statements, the Defendant knew and otherwise were fully aware that the defamatory statements were not true, that prior to publishing the defamatory statements, the Defendant acted in reckless disregard for the truth in the defamatory statements by not conducting any diligence, inquiry and investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were true or false and that prior to publishing the defamatory statements, the Defendant failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity in the defamatory statements by not conducting reasonable diligence, inquiry and investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were true or false. The lawsuit alleges that the hundreds to thousands of person who did read the Defendant’s defamatory statements on Twitter and other social media websites understood the defamatory statement to be of and concerning Plaintiff and were understood by the hundreds to thousands of persons to mean that (1) Plaintiff assaulted Defendant; (2) Plaintiff committed a sexual battery on Defendant; (3) Plaintiff committed (1) and (2) in a manner that would be considered a felony; (4) Defendant engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff without Defendant’s consent; and/or (5) Defendant was forced by Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with Plaintiff, forced meaning the use of fear, threat and intimidation and that because of the facts and circumstances that were known to the hundreds to thousands of readers of the defamatory statements, including that the Plaintiff was a professional wrestler and wrestling promoter in California, (1) The defamatory statements tended to injure Plaintiff as a professional wrestler and wrestling promoter, and otherwise injure Plaintiff, whether or not as a professional wrestler and wrestling promoter; (2) The defamatory statements exposed Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and shame by (1) persons residing in California; (2) persons involved and interested in professional wrestling and wrestling promotions; and (4) those persons using the world-wide-web interested in Plaintiff, professional wrestling and wrestling promotions; and (3)The defamatory statements discouraged others from associating or dealing with Plaintiff.

Ryan has requested damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress for libel against him and for compensatory damages against each defendant, including an amount in excess of $25,000 for economic damages, $25,000 for non-economic damages for an order retracting and correcting the defamatory statements, for equitable relief based on principles that are fair and just. Ryan, who has also requested a jury trial in this lawsuit, is also requesting that the court rules for an injunction ordering to retract the defamatory statements and to take the defamatory statements down from the websites in which the statements were made and published; specifically defendant should retract and take down any, and all, defamatory statements made and published by defendant that (1) Plaintiff assaulted defendant; (2) Plaintiff committed a sexual battery on defendant; (3) Plaintiff committed (1) and (2) in a manner that would be considered a felony;(4) defendant engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff without Defendant’s consent; and/or (5) defendant was forced by Plaintiff to engage in sexual acts with Plaintiff, forced meaning the use of fear, threat and intimidation; and any iteration of such statements.