Lawsuit
Page: 22
Roddy Ricch has defeated a copyright lawsuit that claimed the rapper stole key elements of his chart-topping 2019 song “The Box” from a decades-old soul song, with a judge ruling “no reasonable jury” 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 Perry’s 1975 “Come On Down” — 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: “No reasonable jury could find that the works are substantially similar,” the judge wrote, noting “significant dissimilarities” between the “aesthetic appeal” of each track.
While Perry’s track is a “soul song that contains a melodic tune” and is performed with acoustic instruments, Judge Torres said, Roddy’s track is “a hip-hop song delivered in a monotone rap” created primarily with a synthesizer. The tempo of the older song is “significantly faster” than that of “The Box,” the judge added, and the overall “feel” of the two songs is also clearly distinct.
“[‘Come On Down’] is a sentimental song about ‘love and heartbreak,’ while ‘The Box’ is a braggadocious song about ‘amassing wealth, sleeping with multiple women, and being more skilled than other rappers’,” the judge wrote.
Perry’s lawyers filed the case back in December 2022, claiming an average music fan would be able to hear the “strikingly similar” aspects of the two tracks simply by listening to them, but that more thorough investigation by music experts has more conclusively proven the theft.
“Comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context by a musicology expert demonstrates clearly and convincingly that ‘The Box’ is an unauthorized duplication and infringement of certain elements of ‘Come On Down,’” the suit read.
“Come On Down” is a popular sample in hip-hop — featured in both Young Jeezy’s 2008 “Wordplay” and Yo Gotti’s 2016 “I Remember.” Perry’s lawyers said both of those songs had been fully cleared and licensed by giving him a songwriting credit and an ownership stake.
“Other [artists] in the rap world that have chosen to copy elements of ‘Come On Down’ have done so legally and correctly,” Perry’s lawyers wrote. “Defendants chose not to license the musical composition from plaintiffs and instead chose to intentionally infringe upon the copyright.”
But in Monday’s decision, Judge Torres said there was no need for Ricch to secure such a license because his song did not infringe Perry’s tune. She said that the central alleged similarity — a so-called “ascending minor scale played by violin” that Perry claimed was repeated 24 times in Ricch’s song — was “expressed differently” in the two works. Other important elements of Perry’s work, like a so-called tremolando, are “notably absent” from “The Box,” she added.
“The musical composition … differs from ‘The Box in each of the components where plaintiff claims similarity,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that defendants copied any protectable portion of the musical composition.”
With her ruling, Judge Torres dismissed Perry’s 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 rappers’ cereal brand with “underhanded dealing” and “diabolical actions.”
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Feb. 6), the rappers’ company, Broadus Foods, claimed that after they struck a partnership deal with Post, the company secretly “ensured that Snoop Cereal would not be available to consumers” or would “incur exorbitant costs that would eliminate any profit.”
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.
“Essentially, 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,” Crump wrote in Tuesday’s complaint.
The lawsuit also named Walmart as a defendant, saying the retail giant played a key role in “the most egregious example” of Post’s alleged wrongdoing: “Post essentially worked with Walmart to ensure that none of the boxes of Snoop Cereal would ever appear on the store shelves.”
According to Snoop and Master P, the duo launched Broadus Foods and Snoop Cereal in 2022 in an effort to “add diversity to the food industry” and create a “legacy” that they could leave behind for their families. When they approached Post about a production and distribution partnership, they say the “breakfast juggernaut” 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 “treat Snoop Cereal as one of its own brands” 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.
“Unbeknownst 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,” Crump writes. “Instead, Post intended to only give appearances that they were following the Agreement.”
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 Walmart’s system soon began to falsely show that the product was out of stock.
“However, 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,” the company’s lawyers write. “Unlike 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.”
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 Post’s 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 Lizzo’s 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.
Facing allegations of harassment and discrimination, Lizzo argued last year that case should be dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute — a special law that makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech (known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation”). Her lawyers argued that the accusers were using the lawsuit to “silence” her.
But in a detailed, 34-page decision, Judge Mark H. Epstein ruled that the anti-SLAPP statute didn’t quite fit all of the lawsuit’s allegations. He tossed out some claims – including a particularly loaded charge that Lizzo fat-shamed one of her dancers – but ruled that remainder of the case could go forward.
Figuring out the proper balance – between protected speech and illegal discrimination – was “no easy task,” Judge Epstein wrote, but he said he had “tried to thread this needle.”
“It is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally protected activity,” the judge wrote. “But 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.”
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.
In one particularly vivid allegation, Lizzo’s accusers claimed she pushed them to attend a live sex show at a venue in Amsterdam’s famed Red Light District called Bananenbar, and then pressured them to engage with the performers, including “eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.” After Lizzo herself allegedly led a chant “goading” Davis to touch one performer’s breasts, the lawsuit says, Davis eventually did so.
Repped by Hollywood defense attorney Martin D. Singer, Lizzo fired back in October, arguing that Davis, Williams and Rodriguez had “an axe to grind” against the star because they had been reprimanded over “a pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job up to par.”
“Plaintiffs embarked on a press tour, vilifying defendants and pushing their fabricated sob story in the courts and in the media. That ends today,” Singer wrote. “Instead 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.”
The filing came with sworn statements from 18 members of Lizzo’s touring company who dispute many of the lawsuit’s specific factual accusations. That included several who challenged the headline-grabbing claim that Lizzo fat-shamed some of her dancers — a particularly loaded allegation against a singer who has made body positivity a key part of her brand.
Lizzo’s 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. They’re more common in precisely the opposite scenario: filed by an individual who claims that they’re being unfairly sued by a powerful person to silence accusations of abuse or other wrongdoing.
In their filings, Lizzo’s 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 “a brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them.”
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 “law wisely disfavors chilling such conduct.” But he cautioned that free speech was not a magic wand against allegations of employer wrongdoing.
“The 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 California’s citizens,” the judge said.
The judge dismissed a sexual harassment allegation involving a nude photoshoot on the set of the reality competition series Lizzo’s Watch Out for the Big Grrrls; a disability discrimination accusation around one dancer’s allegation that she was fired from Lizzo’s tour after disclosing her mental health issues; and another allegation stating that Lizzo’s camp intentionally interfered with the dancers’ other job prospects after placing them on a “soft hold” and telling them they could not accept other work.
Lizzo and Shirlene Quigley, the captain of the singer’s dance team, will still have to face other allegations of sexual harassment, as well as accusations of racial and religious discrimination.
“We’re very pleased with the judge’s ruling, and we absolutely consider it a victory on balance,” said the dancers’ lawyer, Ron Zambrano, in a statement. “He did dismiss a few allegations, including the meeting where Arianna was fat shamed, the nude photo shoot, and dancers being forced to be on ‘hold’ 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 – or any celebrity – 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.”
In his own statement, Lizzo’s lawyer, Stefan Friedman, said: “We are pleased that Judge Epstein wisely threw out all or part of four of the plaintiffs’ causes of action. Lizzo is grateful to the judge for seeing through much of the noise and recognizing who she is – 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.”
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 “pattern of self-dealing” 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 firm’s other clients that the band alleges cost it millions of dollars.
The lawsuit claims that King Holmes — a storied music industry law firm with a star-studded list of clients — “failed in their ethical, fiduciary, and lawyerly obligations to protect the interests of their clients.”
“Behind their façade as music industry power brokers, KHPS’ number one priority was not their client Sublime’s legal and business goals, but rather KHPS’ own financial and business interests,” the band’s new attorneys write. “Despite 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.”
When reached for comment on the allegations Thursday, Howard King told Billboard simply: “Welcome to Fantasyland. Please enjoy the ride.”
The case was filed by Sublime’s surviving members, Eric Wilson and Bud Gaugh, as well as by the widow and son of Bradley Nowell, Sublime’s original lead singer who died of a drug overdose in 1996. The band’s corporate entities — Sublime Merchandising LLC and Jake And Troy Brand LLC — 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 “Blurred Lines” copyright case; Paterno represented Metallica in its legal battles against Napster over internet piracy.
But in its complaint, Sublime accuses King Holmes of “playing both sides” 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 “adverse interests” 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 firm’s clients.
“Instead of negotiating the most lucrative terms for Sublime on the open market among multiple potential merchandising vendors, KHPS participated in self-dealing,” the band wrote. “KHPS 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.”
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.
“Sublime never requested that Paterno make himself a producer, nor Carlone make himself a co producer on the documentary,” the lawsuit reads. “Paterno 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.”
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 “Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion” 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 — 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 “difficult” to prove that “abandonment” argument, he said they had “done enough” 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 White’s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from an entity called Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company owned by Maurice White’s 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 “Reunion,” the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few “side musicians” who briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote.
Tribute acts — groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — 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 “parasitic” 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 “Earth, Wind & Fire” as part of their name. Legacy Reunion argued that since the original band had “taken no action to enforce its purported trademark rights,” it had legally abandoned them.
“Due to the unchecked third-party use of the phrase, [EW&F] has abandoned ‘Earth, Wind & Fire,’ and [the name] has lost its trademark significance,” 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 “bare allegations” made by Legacy Reunion, combined with just a “handful” of other tribute bands, falls “woefully short” of what they would need to prove.
Wednesday’s decision by Moreno rejected Earth, Wind & Fire’s motion to dismiss the abandonment argument, but it does not mean that Legacy Reunion has evaded the band’s 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.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Bernard Smalls / @PhotosByBeanz
A radio host is suing 50 Cent for a wild moment where he tossed a microphone into the audience that struck her in the face during one of his concert tour dates.
According to reports, 50 Cent has been hit with a lawsuit by a radio host who claims that a faulty microphone thrown off stage by the rapper struck her, citing that she had “severe and permanent injuries”. The lawsuit was brought by Bryhana Monegain, a radio host with Power 106 in Los Angeles, California. Monegain says that the “Get Free or Die Tryin’” rapper was performing at Crypto.com Arena during his “Final Lap Tour” on August 23, 2023, and had difficulties with his microphone. He threw it into the crowd, and she claimed it struck her in the forehead and wrist.
In the legal documents of the suit filed with the court, Monegain described being transported from the arena to a nearby hospital where she was treated for a forehead laceration, concussion, and pain in her left wrist. Video footage from the concert shows 50 Cent tossing the microphone off stage but it doesn’t precisely capture where it lands. Photos of Monegain show the alleged bruising from the incident, with her head wrapped in gauze. The radio DJ is suing for past and future wages lost, a repayment of her medical expenses, and her attorney fees. She had filed criminal charges against the 48-year-old mogul, but he was cleared of those last November.
“Let’s be very clear, as I told LAPD this afternoon, my client Curtis would never intentionally strike anyone with a microphone,” said Scott Leemon, 50 Cent’s attorney at the time. “Anyone saying something different doesn’t have all the facts and is misinformed.”
The case is currently still open under the supervision of the L.A. City Attorney’s office for a year from the date of the incident, and can be re-visited if there is contact between those two. 50 Cent has not offered any comment.
SiriusXM and Stitcher will not have to face a lawsuit from former Dawson’s Creek star James Van Der Beek accusing them of reneging on a $700,000 podcast deal.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Broadbelt, in a tentative order issued on Friday, dismissed the suit, finding that the audio giant “did not enter into a contract” with the actor since they didn’t finalize the agreement.
Van Der Beek said he reached a deal over email with executives from SiriusXM to host 40 episodes in exchange for a $700,000 minimum guarantee and a 50 percent cut of the net ad revenue. He sued in 2022 after the company walked away from the agreement.
Ruling in favor of SiriusXM on summary judgment, the court concluded that the two sides aren’t bound by an April 2022 document outlining the terms of the deal. It pointed to the first page of the proposal, which states that it’s for “discussion purposes only, is not a binding commitment in any respect, and is not to be interpreted in any respect as a binding commitment to negotiate.”
There was extensive evidence presented to the court referencing the need to sign a definitive, longform agreement contemplated in the initial proposal. Included among them was an email from Stitcher’s Associate Director of Business Development Leah Reis-Dennis, who stated in an April 2022 email “we are ready to call terms officially closed and (finally!) get the longform started.”
Van Der Beek argued that the proposal constitutes a valid, binding contract because Reis-Dennis made various comments indicating that the terms were “closed.”
“However, in those emails, Reis-Dennis also stated that Defendants would be working to begin drafting the longform agreement or request that the longform be drafted,” stated the order, which noted that the actor’s transactional lawyer also discussed having to sign the document to lock down the deal.
Broadbelt also rejected arguments that SiriusXM should be bound by the April 2022 document because the company already started to fulfill some of its terms by beginning the process of hiring a senior producer and requesting Van Der Beek’s payroll information.
In a declaration to the court, Reis-Dennis testified that she requested “loanout info” in order to set up payments to the actor but clarified that she would pay him only “if that agreement was signed.”
The order explained, “Plaintiff has not presented any evidence or argument showing that Reis-Dennis’s request for information to set up payments in the future (1) is inconsistent with the earlier statements that the parties would be bound only upon the execution of a longform agreement, or (2) constitutes an outward manifestation that Defendants intended to be bound by the terms of the April 28 Proposal without such a longform agreement.”
Van Der Beek brought claims relating to breach of contract and sought damages exceeding the $700,000 agreement.
SiriusXM, which was represented by Jordan Susman of Nolan Heimann, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Paras Griffin / Getty
Ice Spice will now have to defend her name in a court of law. One of her peers says she lifted a large part from his song for “In Ha Mood”.
Digital Music News is reporting that the Bronx, New York native is being sued by a Brooklyn MC for allegedly shark biting. On Wednesday, Jan. 17 D. Chamberz (born Duval Chamberlain) filed a lawsuit at Brooklyn Federal Court against Ice Spice. He claims that her 2023 hit “In Ha Mood” took elements from his 2021 single “In That Mood”. The submitted paperwork details his complaint saying “by every method of analysis, ‘In Ha Mood’ is a forgery. Any proper comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context will demonstrate that ‘In Ha Mood’ was copied or principally derived from ‘In That Mood.’”
His legal team would also allege that the resemblances have been noticed by Hip-Hop fans prior to the filing. “Non-expert listeners have independently pointed out that Defendants ‘stole’ ‘In That Mood’ in creating ‘In Ha Mood,’” his lawyer wrote. “The two songs clearly employ numerous noticeably similar composition elements and lyrics, which result in a sound and feel that are very much alike.”
They also speculate that Ice Spice’s producer RIOTUSA was familiar with “In That Mood” saying that he posted an Instagram Story of him listening to New York radio station HOT97 minutes prior to the song being played. Additionally the lawsuit points to RIOTUSA’s father DJ ENUFF, a radio personality on HOT97, that “actively engaged with D. Chamberz’s social media content.”
Ice Spice has yet to publicly comment on the matter. You can listen to “In That Mood” below.
[embedded content]
Madonna is facing a federal class action lawsuit because she allegedly started three New York City concerts later than scheduled, a delay that her accusers say caused real legal harm to ticket buyers who “had to get up early to go to work” the next day.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Jan. 17) in Brooklyn federal court, ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden claim the Material Girl breached her contract with concertgoers and violated New York state laws by starting three December shows past 10:30 rather than the scheduled 8:30.
“Defendants’ actions constitute not just a breach of their contracts … but also a wanton exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices,” attorneys for the two men write.
The three concerts at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, stops on Madonna’s Celebration Tour, were originally scheduled for July but rescheduled to December due to the singer’s illness. Fellows and Hadden say they expected their show (Dec. 13) to start on time, and “would not have paid for their tickets had they known that the concerts would start after 10:30 p.m.”
“Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that the concerts would start much later than the start time printed on the ticket and as advertised,” attorneys for the two men write.
Leaving Barclays Center after 1:00 a.m., the two men say ticket buyers were “left stranded in the middle of the night,” some “confronted with limited public transportation” options and others with increased prices for ride-share services. They also point out that the concert took place “on a weeknight,” meaning they “had to get up early to go to work and/or take care of their family responsibilities the next day.”
In addition to Madonna herself, the lawsuit also names Live Nation and Barclays Center as defendants. In technical terms, the complaint alleges breach of contract; violation of New York’s business practices and false advertising laws; and several other forms of wrongdoing, including unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit also includes a claim of so-called negligent misrepresentation, saying the concert organizers “knew or should have known” that the concerts would not start at 8:30 because of alleged past instances of Madonna taking the stage late — and should have warned fans.
“Madonna has a long history of arriving and starting her concerts late, sometimes several hours late,” attorneys for Fellows and Hadden write. “This history occurred throughout her 2016 Rebel Heart Tour, her 2019-2020 Madame X Tour, and prior tours, where Madonna continuously started her concerts over two hours late.”
Reps for Madonna and Live Nation did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire lawsuit against Madonna here:
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Handout / Getty
R. Kelly is pushing back against a $10.5 million lawsuit settlement against him, claiming that he could not address the lawsuit because he can’t read, among other reasons.
On Tuesday (January 16), legal documents were disclosed revealing R&B artist R. Kelly is challenging a $10.5 million settlement from a lawsuit that he lost in August 2023. Besides stating that he was unaware of it due to the number of lawsuits filed against him, Kelly claims he relies on his legal team to explain the lawsuits against him. “I rely on my lawyers to explain things to me because I cannot read or understand words beyond that of a grade-schooler,” Kelly said in the documents.
R. Kelly also reportedly argues in the documents that the co-defendant and former manager Donnell Russell should be solely responsible for paying the $10.5 million judgment that the court rendered. The lawsuit was filed by six women who claimed that in 2018, Kelly and Russell attempted to stop a screening of the documentary series Surviving R. Kelly in New York City, with Russell being accused of calling in a mass shooting threat to the movie theater where the screening was to take place. Kelly denied his involvement, saying that Russell wasn’t even his manager. “He did that for his own reasons,” the documents read.
Each woman in the lawsuit is slated to receive between $1.1 and $2.5 million from the judgment. These damages would be added to payments that the disgraced singer was ordered to pay out by U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly from his royalties. R. Kelly is currently in prison in North Carolina and is expected to serve out sentences totaling up to thirty years after being convicted of sex trafficking and racketeering. Russell was sentenced to one year in prison after being convicted of violent intimidation.
A statement from Kelly’s lawyer, Jennifer Bonjean, offered some clarification to the reports. “We are absolutely pushing back on the $10.5 million default judgment that was entered against him without notice and without a sound legal justification,” the statement began. “It would be simplistic and silly to write that the basis for our motion to vacate the windfall judgment relates solely to his illiteracy (although he is in fact functionally illiterate per formalized testing). The more significant problem is that there was no legal basis to enter the default judgment on the merits.”