Lawsuit
Page: 21
A new sexual assault lawsuit has been filed against Nigel Lythgoe, this time by an unidentified woman who claims the former American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance producer forcibly touched her in 2016.
The suit, filed on Saturday in Los Angeles Superior Court, is the latest against Lythgoe accusing him of sexual misconduct and abuse. After Paula Abdul sued the producer in December over two separate incidents of sexual assault, a pair of unnamed contestants on âAAG,â which is believed to be a reference to reality series All American Girl cited in a complaint from the women, came forward with accusations that he made unwanted sexual advances and groped them inside his Los Angeles home in 2003. That second suit was filed in January against a defendant with the initials âN.L.,â which multiple outlets identified as the producer.
Lythgoe stepped back from his on-camera and behind the scenes roles on SYTYCD in the wake of the allegations. The producer did not immediately respond to requests for comment for this story.
Trending on Billboard
The suit says the accuser met Lythgoe at a hotel in Beverly Hills and that he âinsistedâ on driving her home. The complaint describes the alleged assault, which took place inside his car over the course of at least ten minutes.
âPlaintiff tried to push Lythgoe away from her and instruct Lythgoeâs driver how to return to her house, but Lythgoe continued to grab at Plaintiff, fondle her breasts, and kiss her,â the suit states. âLythgoe even shoved his hand up Plaintiffâs skirt and penetrated her genitalia.â
The woman claims the producer eventually relented once his driver arrived at her apartment after allegedly taking an unexpectedly long route. She alleges she continues to suffer severe mental anguish due to the incident.
The complaint brings claims for sexual battery, gender violence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It seeks an unspecified amount in damages.
âIt is troubling to hear of yet another alleged incident of a woman being taken advantage of and abused by a prominent public figure,â said Melissa Eubanks, a lawyer for the Jane Doe plaintiff who also represents Abdul in her suit against Lythgoe, in a statement.
In her complaint, Abdul accused Lythgoe of assaulting her twice during one of the early seasons of American Idol and years later when she was a judge on SYTYCD.
âLythgoe shoved Abdul against the wall, then grabbed her genitals and breasts and began shoving his tongue down her throat,â the suit stated.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
The unnamed woman who filed a sexual abuse lawsuit against Interscope Records co-founder Jimmy Iovine in November has dropped the case, according to a document filed in New York court on Thursday (Feb. 15). The case has been âdiscontinued in its entirety with prejudice,â meaning the woman cannot refile. Representatives for Iovine and his accuser […]
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Pacific Press / Getty
New York City is taking a hard line against social media. The mayor has filed a lawsuit claiming TikTok, Instagram and more are responsible for the mental health crisis with kids.
As reported by Digital Music News, the current mayor of The Big Apple is taking social media to task with claims that their apps are causing the youth issues with their mental health. On Wednesday, Feb. 14 Mayor Eric Adams held a press conference alongside New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan, NYC Health + Hospitals President Dr. Michell Katz, and New York City Department of Education Chancellor David C. Banks. During the presentation, the politician announced the filing of a lawsuit against TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and Facebook, citing that each of these platforms are fueling a nationwide mental health crisis.
âOver the past decade, we have seen just how addictive and overwhelming the online world can be, exposing our children to a non-stop stream of harmful content and fueling our national youth mental health crisis,â he explained. âOur city is built on innovation and technology, but many social media platforms end up endangering our childrenâs mental health, promoting addiction, and encouraging unsafe behavior. Today, weâre taking bold action on behalf of millions of New Yorkers to hold these companies accountable for their role in this crisis, and weâre building on our work to address this public health hazard. This lawsuit and action plan are part of a larger reckoning that will shape the lives of our young people, our city, and our society for years to come.â
According to NYC.gov, the filing allege that the platforms âintentionally designed their platforms to purposefully manipulate and addict children and teens to social media.â Some of the features that the officials say create these conditions include âusing algorithms to generate feeds that keep users on the platforms longer and encourage compulsive useâ and âmechanics akin to gambling in the design of apps, which allow for anticipation and craving for likes and hearts.â
The Daily News reports a representative from Meta says that Facebook and Instagram have âover 30 tools and featuresâ to assist parents in making social media safe for their children. Jose CastaĂąeda, a spokesman for Google, says that YouTube also offers âparents robust controlsâ and says that âThe allegations in this complaint are simply not true.â
You can view the press conference below.
[embedded content]

Priscilla Presley is facing a lawsuit that claims she illegally turned her back on a former business partner who had helped her âdig herself out of impending financial ruinâ and played a key role in getting the recent Priscilla movie made.
The lawsuit, filed last year and obtained by Billboard, claims that Elvis Presleyâs ex-wife partnered with a woman named Brigitte Kruse in 2022 to help develop and monetize her name and likeness rights â a move that came as Presley was allegedly â60 days from insolvencyâ and facing $700,000 in unpaid tax debt.
But Kruse claims that in August 2023, Presley and two new advisors suddenly sent her a cease-and-desist letter and âcut off all communicationâ with her former partner. She claims the sudden about-face came as her extensive and time-consuming efforts on Presleyâs behalf were finally paying off.
Trending on Billboard
âThough [Kruseâs company] was integral to the Priscilla movie, all individuals other than Priscilla were excluded from the premiere of the Priscilla Movie at the Venice Film Festival,â reads the October lawsuit, which was first reported Wednesday (Feb. 14) by Daily Beast.
In court filings since the case was first filed, Presleyâs lawyers have pushed the dismiss the lawsuit. They argue that Kruse âtargetedâ their client and that Priscilla split with her former partner because she had discovered that Kruse was âattempting to misappropriate Ms. Presleyâs assets.â
Formally, the case against Priscilla was filed by a company called Priscilla Presley Partners, a corporate entity created by Kruse and Presley to commercially exploit Priscillaâs name, image and likeness (known as NIL). According to the lawsuit, the entity is 51% owned by Kruse and 49% owned by Presley.
The lawsuit claims that it was Presley who first approached Kruse to help run her affairs â a role Kruse accepted even though it required her to give up her existing career and âdevote her attention full-time to managing Pricillaâs life.â After allegedly discovering that Presleyâs âfinancial position was far worse than expected,â the lawsuit claims Kruse and a colleague named Kevin Fialko immediately âsprang into action to prevent Priscillaâs financial ruin and public embarrassment.â
âBecause of the upcoming movie about Priscillaâs life ⌠Kruse (and Fialko) began arranging for engagements for Priscilla to allow her to dig herself out of impending financial ruin (and the potential negative public ramifications of the same), and engaging professionals to keep creditors at bay,â the lawsuit reads.
But according to the lawsuit, the partnership came undone after the intervention of Keya Morgan, a former manager for Marvel Comics founder Stan Lee who was acquitted in 2022 on criminal charges that he stole more than $200,000 in proceeds of memorabilia sales from Lee before his 2018 death.
The lawsuit claims that Morgan âprofessed to be a friend of Priscillaâsâ and said he wanted to assist in Kruse and Priscilla Presley Partnersâ efforts to monetize her likeness, but that shortly after he became involved, the partnership was thrown into chaos.
âThe next day, [an attorney] sent Kruse a letter, purportedly on behalf of Priscilla personally, alleging various misconduct, such as falsely alleging that Kruse had attempted to sell Priscillaâs home, and demanding that Kruse cease and desist immediately, any and all activity on behalf of Ms. Presley,â the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit claims that Presleyâs actions have breached the contract that she signed with Kruse when they created the entity, which was allegedly drafted by Presleyâs own lawyer.
âIn reliance on the agreements defendant voluntarily entered into, plaintiff has devoted substantial time and capital into increasing the value of defendantâs NILâ Priscilla Presley Partnersâ lawyers say. âWhen defendantâs NIL and earning capacity is at its highest that it has been in decades, defendant, without notice, cut off Plaintiffâs ability to exploit that NIL for her sole benefit.â
In the months since the case against Presley was first filed, her attorneys hit back with their own version of events.
In a November motion to dismiss the case, Presleyâs lawyers say Kruse âtargetedâ their client and âinserted herselfâ into her affairs, and had somehow âconvincedâ Priscilla to sign an agreement where she was only a minority owner of her own NIL rights. And they say the sudden split came about because of Kruseâs own improper actions, not because of any other cause.
âEventually, Ms. Presley learned that Ms. Kruse and her associate were attempting to misappropriate Ms. Presleyâs assets and were engaging in other acts of wrongdoing,â Presleyâs lawyers wrote in a November response. âThus, Ms. Presley began extricating herself from Ms. Kruseâs various entanglements. In response, Ms. Kruse ⌠utilized her control of [Priscilla Presley Partners] to orchestrate and file this Florida lawsuit.â
In technical terms, Presleyâs lawyers are seeking to toss out the case on far simpler grounds: That she has no connections to the Florida county where Priscilla Presley Partners filed the lawsuit, meaning the court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.
A hearing on Presleyâs motion to dismiss is scheduled for May. Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Wednesday. Morgan, who was not named as a defendant or accused of any wrongdoing, could not immediately be located for comment.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Matt Winkelmeyer / Getty
A former producer and executive who worked with Russell Simmons has sued the mogul, alleging that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.
According to reports, Hip-Hop pioneer and Def Jam Recordings founder Russell Simmons was hit with a lawsuit Tuesday (Feb. 13) in Manhattan, New York. The lawsuit, filed by a woman referred to as âJane Doe,â claims that Simmons raped her in the late 1990s in his apartment. The woman describes herself as a former senior music executive and music video producer who worked for Def Jam during that time.
In the filing, Ms. Doe claimed that Simmons had invited her to his place to view a rough cut of a music video. Soon after she arrived, his demeanor went from business to being sexual, which she brushed off as a joke. He then pulled a âwrestling moveâ and pinned her down before allegedly raping her. She detailed how she tried to fight him off, but was unable to. She would further detail how Simmons sexually harassed her afterward at the office, invading her personal space. The lawsuit says she resigned from Def Jam in 1997.
Her lawyers, Kenya Davis and Sigrid McCawley, stated that their client was moving up in her career before the sexual assault. âShe was proud of her contributions to the burgeoning musical genre of hip hop, but her hard work and her career in music was disrupted and derailed by Mr. Simmons, a rich and powerful celebrity whose wealth and influence allowed his abusive behavior to go unchallenged for decades,â they said in a statement. âNow a successful writer and producer in the entertainment industry, Jane Doeâs traumatic experiences with Simmons echo those of so many other women who he has preyed upon for decades.â
The lawsuit was filed under the New Yorkâs Adult Survivors Act and the New York City Gender Motivated Violence Act. Both laws contain âlookback windows,â which allow for the filing of lawsuits that wouldnât occur due to being outside of the statute of limitations. Russell Simmons faced other lawsuits accusing him of sexual assault in 2018 and was the subject of the On The Record documentary in 2020 where other accusers detailed their allegations against him. Simmons has stated in the past that he had been in âcompromising situations,â but claimed in an interview that he took and passed nine lie detector tests concerning those allegations.Â

Roddy Ricch has defeated a copyright lawsuit that claimed the rapper stole key elements of his chart-topping 2019 song âThe Boxâ from a decades-old soul song, with a judge ruling âno reasonable juryâ would find the two songs similar.
Songwriter Greg Perry sued Ricch (real name Roderick Wayne Jr.) and Atlantic Records in 2022, claiming the hit track (which spent a whopping 11 weeks at the top of the Billboard Hot 100) had been ripped off from Perryâs 1975 âCome On Downâ â an oft-sampled song in the hip-hop world.
But in a decision Monday (Feb. 12), Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the two songs were clearly very different: âNo reasonable jury could find that the works are substantially similar,â the judge wrote, noting âsignificant dissimilaritiesâ between the âaesthetic appealâ of each track.
While Perryâs track is a âsoul song that contains a melodic tuneâ and is performed with acoustic instruments, Judge Torres said, Roddyâs track is âa hip-hop song delivered in a monotone rapâ created primarily with a synthesizer. The tempo of the older song is âsignificantly fasterâ than that of âThe Box,â the judge added, and the overall âfeelâ of the two songs is also clearly distinct.
â[âCome On Downâ] is a sentimental song about âlove and heartbreak,â while âThe Boxâ is a braggadocious song about âamassing wealth, sleeping with multiple women, and being more skilled than other rappersâ,â the judge wrote.
Perryâs lawyers filed the case back in December 2022, claiming an average music fan would be able to hear the âstrikingly similarâ aspects of the two tracks simply by listening to them, but that more thorough investigation by music experts has more conclusively proven the theft.
âComparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context by a musicology expert demonstrates clearly and convincingly that âThe Boxâ is an unauthorized duplication and infringement of certain elements of âCome On Down,’â the suit read.
âCome On Downâ is a popular sample in hip-hop â featured in both Young Jeezyâs 2008 âWordplayâ and Yo Gottiâs 2016 âI Remember.â Perryâs lawyers said both of those songs had been fully cleared and licensed by giving him a songwriting credit and an ownership stake.
âOther [artists] in the rap world that have chosen to copy elements of âCome On Downâ have done so legally and correctly,â Perryâs lawyers wrote. âDefendants chose not to license the musical composition from plaintiffs and instead chose to intentionally infringe upon the copyright.â
But in Mondayâs decision, Judge Torres said there was no need for Ricch to secure such a license because his song did not infringe Perryâs tune. She said that the central alleged similarity â a so-called  âascending minor scale played by violinâ that Perry claimed was repeated 24 times in Ricchâs song â was âexpressed differentlyâ in the two works. Other important elements of Perryâs work, like a so-called tremolando, are ânotably absentâ from âThe Box,â she added.
âThe musical composition ⌠differs from âThe Box in each of the components where plaintiff claims similarity,â the judge wrote. âPlaintiff has failed to demonstrate that defendants copied any protectable portion of the musical composition.â
With her ruling, Judge Torres dismissed Perryâs case permanently, ending the lawsuit entirely. Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Tuesday.
Snoop Dogg and Master P are suing Walmart and Post Consumer Brands over allegations that the two huge companies sabotaged the rappersâ cereal brand with âunderhanded dealingâ and âdiabolical actions.â
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Feb. 6), the rappersâ company, Broadus Foods, claimed that after they struck a partnership deal with Post, the company secretly âensured that Snoop Cereal would not be available to consumersâ or would âincur exorbitant costs that would eliminate any profit.â
Broadus Foods, represented by prominent attorney Benjamin Crump, claims the move was payback after Snoop (Calvin Broadus) and Master P (Percy Miller) refused to sell their company to Post.
âEssentially, because Snoop Dogg and Master refused to sell Snoop Cereal in totality, Post entered [a] false arrangement where they could choke Broadus Foods out of the market, thereby preventing Snoop Cereal from being sold or produced by any competitor,â Crump wrote in Tuesdayâs complaint.
The lawsuit also named Walmart as a defendant, saying the retail giant played a key role in âthe most egregious exampleâ of Postâs alleged wrongdoing: âPost essentially worked with Walmart to ensure that none of the boxes of Snoop Cereal would ever appear on the store shelves.â
According to Snoop and Master P, the duo launched Broadus Foods and Snoop Cereal in 2022 in an effort to âadd diversity to the food industryâ and create a âlegacyâ that they could leave behind for their families. When they approached Post about a production and distribution partnership, they say the âbreakfast juggernautâ attempted to buy the company outright, but that they refused.
Spurned from acquiring the upstart company, they claim Post agreed to a partnership whereby it would not only produce the products but also âtreat Snoop Cereal as one of its own brandsâ and distribute it to major retailers, including Walmart, Target, Kroger and Amazon. But behind the scenes, they claim that Post was working to sabotage the new company.
âUnbeknownst to Broadus Foods, Post was not on board with their goals and dreams and had no intention of treating Snoop Cereal equally as its own brands,â Crump writes. âInstead, Post intended to only give appearances that they were following the Agreement.â
The worst case of such alleged mistreatment, according to the lawsuit, was the situation at Walmart. Snoop and Master P claim that Snoop Cereal initially sold well at the massive chain, but that Walmartâs system soon began to falsely show that the product was out of stock.
âHowever, upon further investigation by store employees, each of these stores had several boxes of Snoop Cereal in their stockrooms that were coded to not be put out on the store shelves,â the companyâs lawyers write. âUnlike the other Post branded boxes of cereal around them, these Snoop Cereal boxes had been in the stockrooms for months without ever being made available to customers.â
In technical terms, the lawsuit claims that Post breached its agreements with and fiduciary duty to Broadus Foods, as well as defrauded the smaller company and made negligent misrepresentations. The case claims that Walmart committed so-called tortious interference by going along with Postâs scheme and that it aided and abetted Post in breaching its fiduciary duty. And the lawsuit claims that both companies committed civil conspiracy by working together.
Reps for both Post and Walmart did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday evening.
A Los Angeles judge on Friday (Feb. 2) denied Lizzoâs motion to toss out a bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit filed by three of her former backup dancers, dismissing certain accusations but allowing the case as a whole to move forward toward a trial.Â
Facing allegations of harassment and discrimination, Lizzo argued last year that case should be dismissed under Californiaâs anti-SLAPP statute â a special law that makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech (known as âstrategic lawsuits against public participationâ). Her lawyers argued that the accusers were using the lawsuit to âsilenceâ her.Â
But in a detailed, 34-page decision, Judge Mark H. Epstein ruled that the anti-SLAPP statute didnât quite fit all of the lawsuitâs allegations. He tossed out some claims â including a particularly loaded charge that Lizzo fat-shamed one of her dancers â but ruled that remainder of the case could go forward.Â
Figuring out the proper balance â between protected speech and illegal discrimination â was âno easy task,â Judge Epstein wrote, but he said he had âtried to thread this needle.âÂ
âIt is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally protected activity,â the judge wrote. âBut it is equally dangerous to turn a blind eye to allegations of discrimination or other forms of misconduct merely because they take place in a speech-related environment.âÂ
The case against Lizzo, filed in August by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accuses the singer (real name Melissa Jefferson) and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of creating a hostile work environment through a wide range of legal wrongdoing, including not just sexual harassment but also religious and racial discrimination. The alleged weight-shaming, the lawsuit claims, amounted to a form of disability discrimination.Â
In one particularly vivid allegation, Lizzoâs accusers claimed she pushed them to attend a live sex show at a venue in Amsterdamâs famed Red Light District called Bananenbar, and then pressured them to engage with the performers, including âeating bananas protruding from the performersâ vaginas.â After Lizzo herself allegedly led a chant âgoadingâ Davis to touch one performerâs breasts, the lawsuit says, Davis eventually did so.Â
Repped by Hollywood defense attorney Martin D. Singer, Lizzo fired back in October, arguing that Davis, Williams and Rodriguez had âan axe to grindâ against the star because they had been reprimanded over âa pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job up to par.âÂ
âPlaintiffs embarked on a press tour, vilifying defendants and pushing their fabricated sob story in the courts and in the media. That ends today,â Singer wrote. âInstead of taking any accountability for their own actions, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants out of spite and in pursuit of media attention, public sympathy and a quick payday with minimal effort.âÂ
The filing came with sworn statements from 18 members of Lizzoâs touring company who dispute many of the lawsuitâs specific factual accusations. That included several who challenged the headline-grabbing claim that Lizzo fat-shamed some of her dancers â a particularly loaded allegation against a singer who has made body positivity a key part of her brand.Â
Lizzoâs counter-attack came under the anti-SLAPP law. Anti-SLAPP motions are filed every day, but it was unusual to see one aimed at dismissing a harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed by former employees against their employer. Theyâre more common in precisely the opposite scenario: filed by an individual who claims that theyâre being unfairly sued by a powerful person to silence accusations of abuse or other wrongdoing.Â
In their filings, Lizzoâs lawyers argued that the anti-SLAPP law could still apply to the current case because of the creative nature of the work in question. They called the lawsuit âa brazen attempt to silence defendantsâ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them.âÂ
But in his ruling on Friday, Judge Epstein largely rejected that argument. He said that conduct relating to speech is protected and that California law âlaw wisely disfavors chilling such conduct.â But he cautioned that free speech was not a magic wand against allegations of employer wrongdoing.Â
âThe fact that the alleged incidents take place in the entertainment or speech world is no shield of invulnerability or license to ignore law enacted for the protection of Californiaâs citizens,â the judge said.Â
The judge dismissed a sexual harassment allegation involving a nude photoshoot on the set of the reality competition series Lizzoâs Watch Out for the Big Grrrls; a disability discrimination accusation around one dancerâs allegation that she was fired from Lizzoâs tour after disclosing her mental health issues; and another allegation stating that Lizzoâs camp intentionally interfered with the dancersâ other job prospects after placing them on a âsoft holdâ and telling them they could not accept other work.Â
Lizzo and Shirlene Quigley, the captain of the singerâs dance team, will still have to face other allegations of sexual harassment, as well as accusations of racial and religious discrimination.
âWeâre very pleased with the judgeâs ruling, and we absolutely consider it a victory on balance,â said the dancersâ lawyer, Ron Zambrano, in a statement. âHe did dismiss a few allegations, including the meeting where Arianna was fat shamed, the nude photo shoot, and dancers being forced to be on âholdâ while not on tour. However, all the other claims remain, including sexual, religious and racial discrimination, sexual harassment, the demeaning visits to the Bananenbar in Amsterdam and Crazy Horse in Paris, false imprisonment, and assault. The ruling also rightfully signals that Lizzo â or any celebrity â is not insulated from this sort of reprehensible conduct merely because she is famous. We now look forward to conducting discovery and preparing the case for trial.âÂ
In his own statement, Lizzoâs lawyer, Stefan Friedman, said: âWe are pleased that Judge Epstein wisely threw out all or part of four of the plaintiffsâ causes of action. Lizzo is grateful to the judge for seeing through much of the noise and recognizing who she is â a strong woman who exists to lift others up and spread positivity. We plan to appeal all elements that the judge chose to keep in the lawsuit and are confident we will prevail.âÂ
The rock band Sublime has filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the prominent music law firm King Holmes Paterno & Soriano LLP, accusing its former attorneys of a âpattern of self-dealingâ that was rife with conflicts of interest.
In a complaint filed last week in Los Angeles court, Sublime claims that Howard King, Peter Paterno and Joseph M. Carlone committed a wide range of malpractice while representing the band, including brokering a merchandise deal with one of the firmâs other clients that the band alleges cost it millions of dollars.
The lawsuit claims that King Holmes â a storied music industry law firm with a star-studded list of clients â âfailed in their ethical, fiduciary, and lawyerly obligations to protect the interests of their clients.â
âBehind their façade as music industry power brokers, KHPSâ number one priority was not their client Sublimeâs legal and business goals, but rather KHPSâ own financial and business interests,â the bandâs new attorneys write. âDespite holding themselves out to the public as highly experienced in the business side of music, ⌠defendants engaged in a pattern of self-dealing that was rife with potential and actual, conflicts of interest.â
When reached for comment on the allegations Thursday, Howard King told Billboard simply: âWelcome to Fantasyland. Please enjoy the ride.â
The case was filed by Sublimeâs surviving members, Eric Wilson and Bud Gaugh, as well as by the widow and son of Bradley Nowell, Sublimeâs original lead singer who died of a drug overdose in 1996. The bandâs corporate entities â Sublime Merchandising LLC and Jake And Troy Brand LLC â were also named as plaintiffs.
King Holmes Paterno & Soriano touts an eye-popping list of music industry clients, from Dr. Dre to Pharrell Williams to Blink-182 to the Tupac Shakur estate. King famously represented Williams and Robin Thicke in the âBlurred Linesâ copyright case; Paterno represented Metallica in its legal battles against Napster over internet piracy.
But in its complaint, Sublime accuses King Holmes of âplaying both sidesâ on multiple occasions. In one instance, the firm allegedly failed to disclose that it was representing both the band and former manager Dave Kaplan on the same transaction, even though the two sides had âadverse interestsâ in the deal. In another, the band claims that King Holmes steered the band into a merchandise deal without disclosing that the company was another one of the firmâs clients.
âInstead of negotiating the most lucrative terms for Sublime on the open market among multiple potential merchandising vendors, KHPS participated in self-dealing,â the band wrote. âKHPS misadvised SUBLIME which resulted in SUBLIME entering into an agreement with FEA, which triggered far less lucrative terms and merchandising royalties than Sublime would have otherwise gotten if they had been taken to the open market at that time.â
In another incident, Sublime claims that Paterno and Carlone failed to disclose that they had negotiated producer credits and fees for themselves on a documentary about the band, allegedly creating another undisclosed conflict of interest.
âSublime never requested that Paterno make himself a producer, nor Carlone make himself a co producer on the documentary,â the lawsuit reads. âPaterno not only covertly insisted on and obtained this producer title and hefty sum of money, but he then shockingly billed SUBLIME thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal bills for time spent negotiating and obtaining the terms of his producer credit and fee.â

A federal judge ruled Wednesday (Jan. 31) that a tribute band sued by Earth, Wind & Fire for trademark infringement can continue to try to prove its bold counterargument: That the legendary R&B group abandoned the intellectual property rights to its name.
Faced with a lawsuit for using the name âEarth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunionâ at concerts, the smaller act argued last summer that the original group had allowed plenty of other tribute bands to use its name without repercussion â so many, in fact, that it could no longer claim any exclusive legal rights to it.
Lawyers for Earth, Wind & Fire have called that argument meritless and demanded that it be dismissed, but in a decision Wednesday, Judge Federico A. Moreno refused to do so. Though he said Legacy Reunion might ultimately find it âdifficultâ to prove that âabandonmentâ argument, he said they had âdone enoughâ to avoid having it tossed out entirely in the early stages of the case.
Earth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and Whiteâs brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from an entity called Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company owned by Maurice Whiteâs sons that formally owns the name.
In a March lawsuit, that company accused Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a âReunion,â the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few âside musiciansâ who briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
âDefendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiffâs âEarth, Wind & Fireâ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,â the groupâs lawyers wrote.
Tribute acts â groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band â are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must be clear that they are a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original. In 2021, ABBA filed a similar case against a what it called a âparasiticâ band called ABBA Mania.
Facing the lawsuit filed by Earth, Wind & Fire, Legacy Reunion filed a response in August that listed out a dozen other tribute acts that allegedly feature âEarth, Wind & Fireâ as part of their name. Legacy Reunion argued that since the original band had âtaken no action to enforce its purported trademark rights,â it had legally abandoned them.
âDue to the unchecked third-party use of the phrase, [EW&F] has abandoned âEarth, Wind & Fire,â and [the name] has lost its trademark significance,â wrote attorneys for Substantial Music Group, which operates Legacy Reunion.
In a response fired back in September, attorneys for Earth, Wind & Fire said the band had very obviously not abandoned its rights to the name, adding that the âbare allegationsâ made by Legacy Reunion, combined with just a âhandfulâ of other tribute bands, falls âwoefully shortâ of what they would need to prove.
Wednesdayâs decision by Moreno rejected Earth, Wind & Fireâs motion to dismiss the abandonment argument, but it does not mean that Legacy Reunion has evaded the bandâs infringement allegations. To the contrary, the smaller group must now actually prove that argument in future proceedings.
An attorney for the Earth, Wind & Fire did not immediately return a request for comment.