David Geffen’s Estranged Husband Drops Civil Lawsuit

David Geffen‘s bitter split from his estranged husband, Donovan Michaels, has taken a decidedly less dramatic turn.

In accordance with recent reports, Michaels has formally withdrawn his civil lawsuit against the media mogul and is now settling through mediation.

It comes after the previous model alleged that David Geffen demanded sexual “domination” over him and controlled his appearance with painful surgeries and laser treatments.

Things appear to be quieting down between Geffen and his estranged boytoy husband, Michaels. The previous go-go dancer has withdrawn the salacious civil lawsuit he filed against the billionaire music mogul in July, by which he alleged that Geffen breached a contract.

Court documents showed that his lawyer, Bryan Freedman, filed a motion to dismiss the suit without prejudice, meaning the case has temporarily been ended and might be refiled at a later date.

The legal expert, who also represents Justin Baldoni in his sexual harassment lawsuit against Blake Vigorous, told TMZ that the financial conflict tied to the case could be resolved in mediation.

Geffen and Michaels didn’t have a prenup after they got married. The 32-year-old says he’s entitled to community property, but Geffen, who has been retired for 15 years, reportedly has no community income.

Michaels will now take lots of his more ambitious monetary demands off the table, as court mediation is restricted to community property and spousal support.

Meanwhile, filings reveal that the 82-year-old Geffen has paid Michaels $200,000 since their split in February, in addition to one other $200,000 for rehabilitation, and can also be covering his $15,000-per-month rent in Manhattan.

The pair were only married for 23 months, which implies Michaels is just entitled to spousal support for a 12 months.

Within the now-dropped civil suit, Michaels alleged that Geffen had targeted him and weaponized his trauma for “personal gratification and public image,” claiming that he was promised lifelong financial support in exchange for giving up his profession.

Michaels further claimed that their split was in regards to the systemic exploitation of a vulnerable and marginalized young gay black man by a wealthy, powerful white gay billionaire who believed he could get away with anything.

“Behind the glittering façade of their relationship was a calculated pattern of abuse and commodification,” the legal document read.

Elsewhere in his bombshell lawsuit, Michaels alleged that the Hollywood studio boss insisted on sexual “dominance” and compelled him to subscribe to painful surgeries and laser treatments to keep up a spotless appearance.

He explained that as little as an ingrown hair could trigger Geffen, who’d waste no time in bashing him for the perceived flaw.

Geffen allegedly funded painful surgeries to preserve his younger look as “the existence of an ingrown hair was enough to lift Geffen’s ire and trigger a flurry of instructions to correct the imperfection.”

Michaels alleged in his lawsuit that the film producer also demanded such an extreme sex life, one by which he “gained satisfaction from causing pain” and sought “total dominion” over him.

He added that the media mogul prevented him from pursuing a profession of his own and left him managing his properties as a glorified “house husband.”

“[Geffen] desired to be the savior, the white knight, and the ‘top,'” the legal filing read.

Micheals’ lawsuit was met with a powerful response from Geffen, who accused him of using “ludicrous and contrived” allegations to extort money from him and publicly humiliate him.

In court documents filed within the Los Angeles Superior Court, Geffen stated that he never promised Michaels “life-long financial support if the couple separated.”

He also claimed that the previous dancer’s claims of abusive sexual acts, painful cosmetic procedures, and illicit drug usage are an “alternate reality.”

Geffen’s lawyers called Michaels’ criticism “a piece of fiction” and an “try to humiliate Geffen within the court of public opinion and extract an out-of-court settlement” through using “petty gossip and salacious lies.”