NY Judge Dismisses Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Former Anti-Flag Members

The Lawsuit Against Justin Geever Remains Active

On December 18th a New York Judge dismissed a portion of a civil lawsuit brought against the former members of Anti-Flag by Kristina Sarhadi for alleged negligence in relation to an alleged sexual assault committed by the band’s lead singer Justin Geever, with the presiding Judge citing a failure by Sarhadi to identify a breach of duty by the other members of the band in relation to her allegations. “Therefore, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a breach of a specific duty owed to her…” wrote Judge Brenda K. Sannes in her decision dismissing the lawsuit against the former Anti-Flag members Chris Barker, Chris Head, and Pat Bollinger, and Hardwork Distribution, the LLC associated with the band. While the legal battle may be over for the former members of the once celebrated Punk band, the lawsuit against Geever himself remains ongoing. The full ruling can be read here.

In July of 2023 New York based health coach Kristina Sarhadi went public with accusations of sexual assault by Justin Geever (aka Justin Sane), the lead singer of veteran Punk act Anti-Flag that allegedly took place during a film festival that Geever was attending in late 2010. Sarhadi’s accusations, which were levied on an episode of the enough. podcast, spread quickly through the larger Punk community, resulting in the near immediate breakup of the band. In the days following the allegations breaking Geever released a statement denying any nonconsensual encounters while the remaining band members released their own separate statement asserting that they themselves had not been aware of or witnessed any of the kinds of alleged behaviors. In that September of 2023 Rolling Stone released an expose detailing an additional 12 allegations of sexual misconduct against Geever, ranging from unwanted advances to statutory rape going back as far as the early 1990s. Following the publishing of Rolling Stone’s article, the remaining members of the band released a statement further distancing themselves from Geever and his actions. In November of 2023 Sarhadi brought a lawsuit against against Geever under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, a now ended 2022 piece of legislation that for a year temporarily lifted the statute of limitations on civil lawsuits related to sex offenses. However, Sarhadi’s suit did not only name Geever for claims of sexual assault, battery/sexual battery, and and infliction of emotional distress, but additionally targeted the former members of the group for claims of negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. In March of 2024 Sarhadi released a public statement admonishing the former members of the band for retaining council to defend against her lawsuit, rather than simply settling with her out of court. “The band would rather hire a Big Law attorney than accept responsibility for what has happened to me and countless other survivors.” wrote Sarhadi in March about the band’s decision to hire the legal defense that resulted in the finding that the former members were not responsible for the alleged actions of Geever.

While Sarhadi’s lawsuit against Geever for sexual assault is fairly straightforward, the crux of Sarhadi’s lawsuit against the other members of Anti-Flag was based in a particular reading of employment and property law. Sarhadi’s suit sought to paint Geever as an employee of the band that he was an executive of, and that because the hotel that Geever stayed in where the assault occurred was paid for through band’s funds that the rest of the band, were liable for the alleged assault despite the other members not being present in the hotel room or anywhere else with Geever on the night in question. The dismissal decision comes as part of the preliminary period of the lawsuit where the court must first determine the legal grounds for the suit, this decision occurred prior any trial or pre-trial discovery. For the sake of this preliminary period, the court temporarily accepts Sarhadi’s allegations as true in order to determine potential liability. All of this is to say that the Court’s ruling found that even if Sarhadi’s allegations about Geever were true, it would not still not meet the legal threshold to find the other members of the band liable. It should be noted that there is no publicly available evidence indicating that any of the other members of Anti-Flag were aware of Geever’s alleged behavior.

This is the latest in a series of setbacks for Sarhadi who has come under increased scrutiny over the past year both from this publication as well as others for continually falsely claiming to be a social worker and therapist as well as various professional and ethical concerns related to her charity, The Punk Rock Therapist, which she launched in the wake of her allegations against Geever.

However the lawsuit is not over, while the claims against Barker, Bollinger and Head were dismissed, the claims against Geever are still active. Geever has not responded to the lawsuit in any way, no formal legal response or public comment has been made. Sarhadi alleges that Geever has fled the country and there has been no comment from him since July of 2023. Geever’s failure to respond to the lawsuit could result in a default ruling against him. Per the recent decision, a motion for a default judgement against Geever must be made in the next 30 days.

As of publication none of the outlets who initially reported on this story like Rolling Stone, the enough. podcast, r/punk, the Pittsburgh City paper or any other outlet for that matter with the exception of Court House News has reported on this major development in the case despite it occurring some two weeks ago. They have continually ignored any request for comment or correction with regards to this story over the past year.

Please direct any inquiries to jacktorrancewrites@proton.me

I can be found on twitter @jtorrancesghost