Steven Tyler is due to face trial on May 3, 2027, in the civil lawsuit brought by Julia Misley in Los Angeles. Judge Lawrence P. Riff has now invited both sides to seek review of earlier orders, including a ruling that narrowed the case to alleged events in California. Misley alleges abuse in the 1970s, and Tyler disputes her account.
The new trial date in the Steven Tyler civil case came with an invitation to revisit decisions made before the case changed judges. At a November 9 hearing in Los Angeles, Judge Lawrence P. Riff set the trial for May 3, 2027, and gave lawyers on both sides until November 20 to identify orders by his predecessor that they want him to reconsider.
One of those orders defines which events the trial can currently cover. In April, Judge Patricia A. Young granted a defence request for summary adjudication on claims concerning alleged events outside California. The ruling affected allegations tied to Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington. Young denied a separate request for judgment in Tyler’s favour on the entire lawsuit, leaving the California portion of the case to proceed.
Riff indicated that he was prepared to set aside an earlier order if either party requested it and to decide the question himself. That process would give the parties another ruling on the scope of the case before trial. The April decision has yet to be reversed, and the allegations excluded under that order have yet to be restored.
Lawyers for Misley have indicated that they intend to challenge the April ruling. The defence has argued that the earlier decision was legally sound. A hearing on the issue is expected in January, ahead of the May trial date. The November 20 deadline comes first, and it applies to requests from either side about Young’s orders.
The change of judge followed a delay in September, when the case was about two weeks away from its previous trial date. Young stepped aside after disclosing that she had discussed the case with a judge who had already been disqualified from it. The reassignment brought the trial calendar back before the court and gave Riff a reason to address the status of decisions issued before he took over.
Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the civil action in December 2022. Her complaint alleges that Steven Tyler sexually abused and manipulated her in the 1970s, beginning when she was 16. She says she lived with him in Boston and alleges that an agreement involving her parents gave him legal guardianship over her. Her account of that arrangement forms part of the lawsuit.
Steven Tyler denies that the relationship was non-consensual. Lawyers for Steven Tyler have argued that the two lived together in Massachusetts and have cited the state’s age of consent at the time. The significance of that argument depends in part on which alleged events are before the court and which state’s law applies. Those questions were among the issues raised as the parties argued over claims involving more than one state.
Misley has also pointed to passages in Tyler’s 2011 memoir, Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?, in support of her account. She says she is the unnamed teenager referred to in the book and cites the discussion of guardianship. Her use of those passages is part of the civil complaint. The allegations remain disputed, and the court has yet to reach a trial finding on liability.
The timing of the filing is another part of the case. Misley brought her complaint during a window opened under California law for certain older claims alleging sexual abuse of minors. Because she describes events across several states, lawyers have also disputed the extent to which claims based on conduct alleged elsewhere can be heard under that framework. Young’s April order resolved that question at the pretrial stage in favour of excluding the out-of-state claims.
The court record shows that Misley originally filed her complaint against an unnamed defendant in December 2022 and later amended it to name Steven Tyler. A March 2024 ruling struck portions of her emotional distress claim that were based on the publication of books by Tyler and Aerosmith. The April 2026 decision addressed the separate question of where the alleged underlying conduct took place.
The May date is for a civil trial. The scheduling decision leaves the factual dispute between Misley and Steven Tyler unresolved. A ruling on the requests for review would determine how much of the complaint could be presented when the parties reach that trial. If Riff upholds the April decision, the existing geographic limit would remain. A different ruling could allow additional allegations to be considered.
For the lawyers, the next deadline is November 20. What they ask Riff to review will determine the questions he has to take up before the parties arrive at the Los Angeles courthouse in May. The expected January hearing is the first opportunity on the new calendar for the dispute over the April ruling to return to court.
