Getty Image
Back in March of 2022, a 25-year-old woman filed a lawsuit claiming Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones had a relationship with her mother in the 1990s and that he is her biological father.
The woman, Alexandra Davis, claimed her mother received a financial settlement from Jones to not publicly disclose that he was her father, but Davis felt that since she didn’t sign it, she isn’t legally bound by the agreement.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CuPg_9Trzy_/?hl=en
According to Jerry Jones’ former lawyer Don Jack, the Cowboys owner has paid nearly $3 million in “child support” payments to Davis and her mother including paying her full tuition at SMU and buying her a $70,000 Range Rover on her 16th birthday. He also stated that he believed Davis was just trying to extort more money from Jones and the she asked for $20 million to keep quiet.
“I would challenge Jerry Jones to put up any evidence that anyone demanded any money, period,” said her lawyer Andrew A. Bergman. “It’s a shame that Jerry Jones wants to further damage his own daughter by now claiming she is extorting him. I challenge them to put up any evidence that supports either one of these defamatory and false claims.”
Davis eventually dropped the lawsuit, however, she then filed a paternity suit against Jones.
So, in December of 2022, Jerry Jones was ordered to take a paternity test to prove once and for all if he is, in fact, Davis’ father.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Cfb-UIIruUY/?hl=en
Later, Alexandra Davis would file a defamation lawsuit against Jones, Donald Jack and Cowboys spokesperson Jim Wilkinson.
A few weeks ago, a judge in the Western District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit.
This week, Davis, who appeared on the reality show Big Rich Texas on the Style network and is now a 26-year-old congressional aide, refiled her defamation lawsuit.
In the new complaint, she claims Jack and Wilkinson accused her of “being an extortionist and portrayed Plaintiff as attempting to ‘shakedown’ Defendant Jones.”
“Throughout their smear campaign against Plaintiff, Defendants either knew the statements being made by them were false or they knew enough facts such that they should have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of their defamatory statements,” the documents read.