What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
A Los Angeles judge narrowed Steven Tyler’s civil case on April 28, 2026, by granting summary adjudication on claims based on alleged conduct outside California. But the judge denied Tyler’s motion for summary judgment, so the ruling did not end the lawsuit or decide whether the allegations were true. A claim tied to alleged conduct in California remained for further proceedings.
What did the judge actually decide?
In case 22TRCV01604, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Patricia A. Young issued a 16-page minute order on April 28, 2026. The order states: “The motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED with respect to the claims that occurred outside of California.” The ruling narrowed the case geographically; it did not grant Tyler a complete judgment.
Summary judgment would have resolved the case, or the relevant claims, without a trial. Summary adjudication instead resolves specified issues or claims while other parts of a case may continue. Here, the court granted adjudication only for claims based on alleged acts outside California. The California-based portion remained unresolved.
What claims and allegations are involved?
Misley filed the civil lawsuit in December 2022. The court order identifies claims for sexual battery, sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The allegations concern events in the 1970s. Tyler has denied them, according to the Los Angeles Times. The court’s account of the parties’ summary-judgment papers describes allegations and submitted facts; it is not a finding that abuse occurred.
#1 Best Overall
The order says Misley was born in October 1957 and alleges that she met Tyler after an Aerosmith performance in Portland in November 1973, when she was 16 and he was 25. It recounts that they later lived together in Boston and describes her allegation that they also had sex during a visit to California, including at a hotel hot tub. The ruling’s distinction turns on where the alleged conduct occurred, not on a finding about the truth of those allegations.
Why did reports call it a “99.9%” victory?
Tyler’s attorney, David Long-Daniels, told the Los Angeles Times that the court had dismissed “99.9%” of the claims. That percentage was counsel’s characterization, not a figure in the court’s order. The order’s actual language is narrower and procedurally specific: summary judgment was denied, while summary adjudication was granted for claims based on alleged conduct outside California.
The order also recounts that a March 2024 ruling had struck portions of Misley’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim based on publication of Aerosmith’s and Tyler’s books or memoirs. The April 2026 ruling addressed geographic and limitations issues concerning the remaining allegations; it did not reverse that earlier ruling.
What happened to the trial setting?
In September 2026, Judge Young recused herself after determining that she was disqualified under California law. Los Angeles magazine reported on September 21 that the recusal vacated upcoming proceedings, including the September 28 jury-trial setting. Based on its account of the September 18 docket, the magazine reported that no new trial date or publicly identified replacement judge had been listed at that point. It also reported that Misley had requested complex-case status.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Rank #3
- New
- Mint Condition
- Dispatch same day for order received before 12 noon
- Guaranteed packaging
- No quibbles returns
MyNewsLA reported on September 16 that the minute order did not state why Young was stepping down. It also reported that Tyler’s attorneys had filed pretrial papers opposing testimony from two of Misley’s sons. The available reports do not establish that a trial occurred or that a new trial date was set after September 18, 2026.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the ruling does—and does not—establish
- Established: the court denied Tyler’s motion for summary judgment.
- Established: the court granted summary adjudication for claims based on alleged conduct outside California.
- Not established: that the allegations were false, or that the entire lawsuit was dismissed. The ruling was a civil pretrial decision, not a verdict on the underlying allegations.
- Procedural status: the California-based portion remained unresolved, and the September 28, 2026 trial setting was later vacated after the judge’s recusal.
Sources: Los Angeles County Superior Court, case 22TRCV01604, minute order dated April 28, 2026; Cerys Davies, Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2026; MyNewsLA, September 16, 2026; Taylor Parise, Los Angeles magazine, September 21, 2026.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
