Lawsuit
Page: 12
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: James Devaney / Getty
Nicki Minaj is dealing with a new legal battle, this time with a fan who claimed that she relentlessly slandered him online.
According to reports, Nicki Minaj is being sued by a former fan who alleges that the rap star humiliated him by slandering him repeatedly despite his avid support of her. The lawsuit was filed in a Los Angeles, California, court by Tameer Peak. Peak is suing for $5 million in damages for reputational harm, financial loss, and emotional distress. In the documents of the lawsuit, Peak states that he has been one of Nicki Minaj’s biggest fans for over 15 years and was instrumental in the social media promotion of Pink Friday 2, which was a boost to her career.
Peak says that the relationship changed amid the “Nicki Hate Train,” which took place in 2017 where the rapper accused several fans of hers of being moles who were tasked with sabotaging her. He also claims that Minaj berated him on an Instagram livestream that had over 100,000 viewers after inviting him to her hotel room to film, and that her husband, Kenneth Petty, assaulted him during a fan event at the 2020 Super Bowl in Tampa, Florida. The suit also claims that Peak received messages from other fans earlier this year to “stop saying dumb s–t,” and would fire insults at him in online sessions with fans, which included, “It’s clear they’re not necessarily, you know, a full basket umm at the picnic.” She also allegedly claimed the Newark, New Jersey, resident was on welfare and that he was a “stalker” who impersonated members of her team.
Peak has gained some notoriety in the past for being a superfan, having gained some fame for showing up to Beyonce’s Renaissance Tour in Philadelphia last year in an alien costume. “Mr. Peak has been harassing Nicki on social media for years on end to no avail,” said Nicki Minaj’s attorney Judd Bernstein in a statement. “He has now graduated to seeking to shake her down financially with manifestly false allegations and legally frivolous claims. He will regret having gone down this disreputable road when he is forced to pay her legal fees as required by California law.”
There’s a new front in the never-ending legal war between Joey Ramone’s brother and Johnny Ramone’s widow over control of the iconic punk band.
In a new lawsuit filed Friday (Aug. 23) in Manhattan federal court, Joey’s brother Mitchel Hyman (better known as Mickey Leigh) accused Johnny’s wife, Linda Cummings-Ramone, of violating federal trademark law by carrying out an “unrelenting quest” to associate herself with the Ramones.
As is typical of the nasty dispute between the two heirs (who each control exactly half of the band’s holding company), the lawsuit pulled no punches — calling Cummings-Ramone a former “groupie” with an “insatiable personal desire to shine a spotlight on herself.”
Trending on Billboard
“Ms. Cummings-Ramone has made and continues to make blatant attempts to exploit and personally capitalize on and benefit from the name, goodwill and legacy of the Ramones — that is, to try to push the false narrative that she is the heiress to … the Ramones’ legacy,” Leigh’s lawyers write. “She most certainly is not. She is nothing more than a blatant self-promoter and an infringer.”
Joey Ramone (Jeffrey Ross Hyman) and Johnny Ramone (John William Cummings) were not actually brothers, and they had a notoriously chilly relationship during their decades as bandmates. In the years since the two died in the 2000s, that feud has seemingly continued between Leigh and Cummings-Ramone.
As the executors of Joey’s and Johnny’s respective estates, Leigh and Cummings-Ramone each own half of Ramones Productions, the entity that controls the band’s music and other assets. But that partnership has not gone smoothly, featuring multiple lawsuits and arbitrations over the past decade.
The latest scuffle began in January, when Cummings-Ramone sued Leigh in New York state court over allegations that he had “covertly” developed an “unauthorized” biopic (believed to be Netflix’s announced Ramones movie starring Pete Davidson as Joey). In the lawsuit, Cummings-Ramone said that any “authoritative story of the Ramones” would require her sign-off: “To permit defendants alone to tell the authoritative story of the Ramones would be an injustice to the band and its legacy.”
Eight months later, with the earlier case still pending, Leigh is now on offense — claiming that Cummings-Ramone has infringed the band’s trademarks held by Ramones Productions by using them herself. His new case repeatedly takes aim at her use of the name “Linda Ramone” despite the fact that “Ramone” was not the legal surname of her late husband nor any other band member.
“Ramones are unique in many ways. One of which is that they are the only band of stature where all the members were not related but used the same last name as if they were,” Leigh’s lawyers write. “That made it easy for defendant to insert herself into the Ramones legacy as part of the family, the public spokesperson, and to associate her personal brand with Ramones, by using the name ‘Linda Ramone.’ Indeed, ‘Linda Ramone’ never existed while her husband, John Cummings was alive. Defendant increasingly adopted the name ‘Linda Ramone’ after Mr. Cummings died.”
The lawsuit claims that earlier legal proceedings and agreements have sharply restricted how Cummings-Ramone is allowed to use that name, but that she has repeatedly exceeded those limitations in her public persona because she is “unabashedly obsessed with portraying herself as the widow of Johnny Ramone” and as an “integral member” of the band.
“Ms. Cummings-Ramone presents herself to the world as ‘Linda Ramone’ and unilaterally adopts the mantle of designated Ramones spokesperson and ‘keeper of the legacy’,” Leigh’s lawyers write. “She intentionally gives the false impression that she is empowered to take the lead on, or unilaterally pursue, Ramones business.”
A representative for Cummings-Ramone did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday (Aug. 26).
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Monica Morgan / Getty
The auction of Damon Anthony “Dame” Dash’s stake in Roc-A-Fella Records now has a new twist as New York State claims he owes them millions in back taxes.
The legal battle over mogul Dame Dash’s share in Jay-Z’s Roc-A-Fella Records has another added twist, as a motion was filed in a federal court in Manhattan by New York’s Department of Taxation & Finance on Wednesday (August 21). According to reports, the motion was for the department to legally intervene in proceedings leading up to an auction of Dash’s share in the record label that will be conducted by the United States Marshalls Service in a Manhattan hotel on August 29. They claim that Dash owes $8.7 million in back taxes and penalties on income that he earned between 2005 and 2018.
“To date, the Department has been unsuccessful in its efforts to collect the unpaid New York State tax debt owed by Dash,” wrote attorneys for the state in the filing. “Intervening in this matter may be the Department’s only opportunity to collect some of the unpaid taxes Dash owes to New York.” The motion adds more complexity to the situation, as the share held by Dash (which totals 33.3% interest) is being auctioned off to fulfill a judgment in a lawsuit won by film producer Josh Webber. Webber sued Dash over a failed movie partnership and was granted $823,000.
However, the New York City’s Department of Social Services will receive the first share of proceeds from the auction as Dash owes $145, 096 in unpaid child support.
The tax department made it clear that its filing was not to supersede the social services department, but it also said that it had a lien against Dash’s Roc-A-Fella proceeds for over a decade. Jay-Z and Kareem “Biggs” Burke had tried to stop the auction from proceeding but were denied in February.
The opening bid of the auction will begin at $1.2 million, and Dash will receive any monies after the judgments are fulfilled, with his lawyer Natraj Bhushan claiming they “expect a robust auction with bids entering the several millions if not higher.” What is clear is that Mr. Damon Dash is allergic to responsibility,” Webber’s attorney Chris Brown stated in an interview. “I’m more interested in learning if New York State will file tax evasion charges against him or if he will be arrested at the upcoming auction. That is what I want to find out. Just my opinion.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Johnny Nunez / Getty
In a video on social media, Russell Simmons blasted those “attacking” his celebrity friends who’ve made visits to his home in Bali.
The entertainment mogul Russell Simmons voiced his frustration with those questioning the celebrities that have come to visit him at his home in Bali, Indonesia where he moved to amid multiple accusations of rape and sexual abuse. “Black people, did you forget that I got 10,000 black men out of jail? … And that I registered more of you to vote than probably anybody you know?”, he said in an Instagram Live video which was shared by another account named Live Bitez on Tuesday (August 20). Simmons was seated in a basic yoga pose as he looked into the camera.
“And I worked for Black Lives Matter and every movement that’s helped our people — all the women’s rights and even gay rights movements that I did so much work for,” Simmons continued, “To let them demonize me in such a way that my friends cannot visit me without you attacking them — but yet you stand next to Donald Trump, knock it off.”
He paused before stating that he’ll be in New York City next week. “I call the paparazzi on myself every time I’m there. I have an office. … I’m there all the time. I work out of New York sometimes, but I live here. This is my last chapter. I live here to heal people … and to give them spiritual and mental rejuvenation.”
The 66-year-old then addressed the accusations directly, saying: “From what I can tell, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, President Trump, all have more credible claims against them than I do if you ask Oprah [Winfrey]. I’ve never been charged with — who took nine lie detector tests? … Did Bill Clinton do that? Did Joe Biden do that? Did President Trump do that? Knock it off. I love you. I just don’t want my friends attacked … just leave my friends alone. Don’t attack them for visiting me. Attack friends for visiting Trump; he’s been convicted.”
Simmons has been living in Bali since 2017, and has recently been dealing with a few lawsuits accusing him of rape with the most recent being in February when a former music video producer sued him for allegedly attacking her in the 1990s. Several celebrities, including Taraji P. Henson, Usher, and MC Lyte have been pictured hanging out with the mogul in the past few months.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Taylor Swift’s legal options after Donald Trump falsely claims she endorsed him; a guilty plea for YoungBoy Never Broke Again on a federal gun charge; Mariah Carey’s arguments to dismiss a copyright case over “All I Want For Christmas”; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Will Taylor Protect Her … Reputation?
When Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump posted AI-generated images to social media that falsely suggested Taylor Swift had endorsed him, many Swifties and Democrats asked the same question all at once: Can she sue him? After all, Taylor is no MAGA fan. In 2020, she urged her legions of fans to vote Trump out of office, blasting him for “stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism” and endorsing then-candidate Joe Biden. The superstar hasn’t endorsed anybody yet in 2024, but you can be pretty certain that it’s not going to be Trump. But there it was: an AI-generated image of Swift herself, dressed up as Uncle Sam in the style of a World War II-era recruiting poster, bearing a clear message: “Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump.” At the top of the post, Trump himself responded to the apparent endorsement: “I accept!” Can Taylor file a lawsuit? On what grounds? And should she do so? Go read our full story here to find out.
Other top stories this week…
YOUNGBOY GUILTY PLEA – YoungBoy Never Broke Again (aka NBA YoungBoy) notified a judge that he would plead guilty to a federal gun charge that has seen him held under house arrest for more than two years while awaiting trial. But the deal won’t resolve dozens of newer charges in Utah over claims that he ran a “large scale prescription fraud ring” while living under house arrest. CLASS DISMISSED – Adidas AG won a ruling tossing out a class action that claimed the company violated U.S. securities laws by failing to warn shareholders about internal offensive behavior from Ye (formerly Kanye West) before the company split with him in 2022. Though the judge said she did not condone his “erratic, inappropriate, and antisemitic” behavior and said it was “troubling” that it had happened at Adidas, she ruled that the company’s actions didn’t rise to securities fraud: “The question before this court is not whether to admonish Ye or hold Adidas morally accountable for Ye’s conduct.” SAMPLE SETTLEMENT – Elsewhere in Kanye-world, the rapper reached a settlement in a copyright lawsuit that accused him of using an uncleared sample from the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions in his song “Life of the Party.” The case was one of more than a dozen such cases he’s faced during his career, including a high-profile battle with the estate of Donna Summer that settled earlier this year. GRACELAND SCAM – A Missouri woman named Lisa Jeanine Findley was arrested and charged with attempting to defraud the family of Elvis Presley and steal their ownership interest in Graceland. The alleged scheme is what led to the bizarre, largely unexplained incident that saw the famed Memphis mansion seemingly put up for auction earlier this summer. NO MORE YSL TRIAL? As Young Thug’s gang trial drags on in Atlanta, a Republican challenger to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis now says she will end the case if she’s elected. In a statement, Courtney Kramer said the trial against Thug’s YSL was designed to “bring fame” to Willis rather than “bring justice to the community,” and that it’s resulted in “endless amounts of taxpayer dollars” being spent “on a prosecution that is based almost entirely on witnesses with little to no credibility.” HIPGNOSIS SUES MANILOW – Hipgnosis Song Fund filed a lawsuit against Barry Manilow in U.K. court over bonus payments relating to its acquisition of the singer’s catalog four years ago, accusing the singer of breach of contract and other wrongdoing over a deal that saw the company buy the rights to 917 songs including “Mandy,” “Looks Like We Made It” and many others. CHRISTMAS CLASH – Mariah Carey asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit claiming she stole her perennial holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You” from an earlier song of the same name by songwriter Vince Vance. The star’s lawyers argued that the two songs share only “an unprotectable jumble of elements,” including “a title and hook phrase used by many earlier Christmas songs,” a series of “Christmas tropes” and other rudimental elements “scattered throughout these completely different songs.” RONDO DRUG PLEA – Rapper Quando Rondo pleaded guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana, resolving an indictment issued in December that saddled him with more extensive charges involving conspiracy to sell methamphetamine, fentanyl and cocaine. State gang and drug charges are still pending against him.
Trending on Billboard
The U.S. Department of Justice has refiled its historic anti-trust lawsuit against concert promoter Live Nation, with 10 additional states joining the effort to break up the company more than a decade after its 2010 merger with Ticketmaster.
The Attorneys General for Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah and Vermont were added to an amended complaint filed in New York’s Southern District on Monday (Aug. 19), bringing the total number of states participating in the lawsuit to 40 total, along with the District of Columbia.
“There is nothing new in the Amended Complaint,” a statement from Live Nation reads. “The lawsuit still won’t solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows. We look forward to sharing more facts as the case progresses.”
Trending on Billboard
The amended lawsuit re-alleges that Live Nation and Ticketmaster acted like a monopoly and violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by using illegal tactics to expand its concert promotion business and management of amphitheaters. The new complaint also includes new details about how Live Nation allegedly expanded its ticketing business after it merged with Ticketmaster in 2009, including information about the company’s controversial relationship with arena developer and operator Oak View Group (OVG). Founded in 2015 by Tim Leiweke and music manager Irving Azoff, Oak View Group manages nearly 200 venues and relies on Live Nation to bring major tours to its concert facilities, which includes such top U.S. venues as Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle, the Moody Center in Austin and UBS Arena in Belmont, N.Y.
As the building manager’s main representative, OVG is supposed to manage the competitive process for selecting a venue’s ticketing contract, but the complaint alleges that OVG is obligated to “advocate for exclusive agreements with Ticketmaster for more than 100 venues Oak View Group manages” — which the lawsuit claims essentially “locks those venues into long-term exclusive Ticketmaster agreements.” The agreement, the government argues, unfairly prevents third-party competitors from entering the ticketing space while compensating OVG with a substantial “incentive payment” from Live Nation plus significant annual payments.
In fairness, OVG’s competitor AEG — which also competes with Live Nation for concert promotion and ticketing — also accepted payments for the buildings it managed under ASM Global, the building management firm it owned with Canadian private equity firm Onex and recently sold to Legends Hospitality.
The revised complaint does not include additional damaging exchanges between Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino and potential competitors, or new damaging information that shows the company employing heavy-handed tactics. Instead, it contains more analysis of the concert market following the merger of Live Nation-Ticketmaster. On that front, according to the complaint, “Live Nation’s conduct has harmed fans because they have been left with fewer concerts, have had more limited choices among touring artists, have paid higher ticketing fees, and have experienced a lower-quality ticketing experience than they otherwise would have but for Live Nation’s anticompetitive conduct.”
Adidas AG has won a court order dismissing a class-action lawsuit that claims the German sneaker giant violated securities laws by failing to warn its shareholders about Ye’s offensive behavior.
The case claimed that Adidas knew about serious problems with Ye (formerly Kanye West) as far back as 2018 but failed to disclose them, leaving investors facing losses when the company finally ended the partnership in 2022 over Ye’s antisemitic tirades and erratic behavior.
In a ruling Friday (Aug. 16), Judge Karin Immergut said she did not condone Ye’s conduct “erratic, inappropriate, and antisemitic” behavior and said it was “troubling” that it had happened at Adidas, but that it did not rise to the level of securities fraud.
Trending on Billboard
“The question before this court is not whether to admonish Ye or hold Adidas morally accountable for Ye’s conduct,” Immergut wrote. “Rather, this Court is faced with a precise legal question: has Plaintiff sufficiently pleaded facts showing that Adidas misled investors and thereby committed federal securities fraud? On the current record before this Court, the answer is no.”
Adidas ran a lucrative collaboration with Ye and his Yeezy apparel brand for nearly a decade. But the party ended in 2022, when the sneaker company (and many others) cut ties with the embattled rapper amid a wave of offensive statements he made about Jewish people. In an October 2022 statement announcing the split, Adidas said the rapper’s statements were “unacceptable, hateful and dangerous.”
It’s been a messy breakup for Adidas. The split contributed to a loss of $655 million in sales for the last three months of 2022 and left Adidas holding $1.3 billion worth of unsold Yeezys and facing tricky questions about how to dispose of them responsibly. Adidas also battled Ye in court over millions in company funds and disclosed that it was litigating other aspects of the divorce in private arbitration.
In May 2023, a group of investors took Adidas to court over the breakup, arguing that Adidas executives had been aware for years of the potential harm that could come from the Ye partnership but had failed to publicly share such concerns with shareholders, as required by U.S. securities law.
In particular, the lawsuit cited a November 2022 Wall Street Journal article reporting that Adidas executives feared for years that the Yeezy relationship could “blow up at any moment.” The article reported that West had made antisemitic comments in front of Adidas staffers, including suggesting that an album be named after Adolf Hitler. The Journal story also highlighted a 2018 presentation to then-CEO Kasper Rørsted that detailed the risks of the arrangement and contemplated cutting ties with him.
But in Friday’s ruling, Judge Immergut sided with arguments from Adidas that the company’s disclosure statements had not misled investors about the risk posed by Ye. In one passage, she reminded the plaintiffs that Ye had shown signs of erratic behavior well before the split with Adidas — quoting statements in which he said that “racism is a dated concept” and that slavery was a “choice.”
“This court would be remiss not to note the very public nature of Ye’s behavior before Fall 2022,” the judge wrote. “After all, courts are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.”
The judge gave the investors one final chance to refile an updated version of their case against Adidas, but she cast doubt on whether they could overcome the problems she had identified in her ruling.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return a request for comment.
More than nine months after Mariah Carey was again sued for allegedly stealing her perennial holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You” from an earlier song, her attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that the songs share nothing but commonplace musical building blocks.
In November, songwriter Vince Vance (real name Andy Stone) filed a second lawsuit against Carey accusing her of copyright infringement, arguing that her 1994 smash “was a greater than 50% clone…in both lyric choice and chord expressions” of his 1989 song of the same name, which was performed by his group Vince Vance and the Valiants (a similar lawsuit Vance filed in 2022 was subsequently dropped without prejudice, meaning he was allowed to refile). He was joined in the November action by Troy Plaintiff, who claims to have co-written the song with Vance.
But in documents filed in Los Angeles federal court on Monday (Aug. 12), attorneys for Carey and her co-defendants, including “All I Want” co-writer Walter Afanasieff, contend that Vance’s claims fail the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s “extrinsic test for substantial similarity in protectable expression” — essentially arguing that any similarities between the two songs are coincidental.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs’ claimed similarities between Vance and Carey are unprotectable…because they are, among other things, fragmentary and commonplace building blocks of expression that Vance and Carey use differently in their overall different lyrics and music,” the filing reads.
In the November lawsuit, Vance and Powers argued that the two songs share a “unique linguistic structure” and musical elements that Carey allegedly copied for her mega-hit, which has reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 during the holiday season for five years running. They also claimed that despite how common it is today, the phrase “all I want for Christmas is you” was a “distinctive” one back when Vance and Powers’ song was released.
But Carey and her co-defendants argue that the plaintiffs “lack competent evidence that the songs share any protectable expression.” They add that reports produced by two musicologists Vance and Powers retained to bolster their case “list isolated, fragmentary similarities in Vance and Carey, while omitting differences and the context in which the claimed similarities occur,” making their conclusions “inherently subjective” and “irrelevant to the objective extrinsic test.”
“The claimed similarities are an unprotectable jumble of elements: a title and hook phrase used by many earlier Christmas songs, other commonplace words, phrases, and Christmas tropes like ‘Santa Claus’ and ‘mistletoe,’ and a few unprotectable pitches and chords randomly scattered throughout these completely different songs,” the lawyers write.
A representative for Vance and Powers did not immediately respond to Billboard’s request for comment.
A lawsuit against Beyoncé and Sony Music over samples featured in her chart-topping hit “Break My Soul” has been dropped, less than three months after the case was filed. The voluntary dismissal will end an unusual case in which members of Da Showstoppaz, a little-known New Orleans group, claimed that Beyoncé had used their music […]
With claims of uncleared samples back in the news, Billboard dug up every case that’s been filed against the controversial rapper. Spoiler alert: It’s a lot.