State Champ Radio Lawsuit
Page: 4
The estate of Donna Summer filed a copyright lawsuit against Kanye West on Tuesday (Feb. 27), accusing him of “shamelessly” using her 1977 hit “I Feel Love” without permission in his song “Good (Don’t Die).” Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news In a complaint filed in Los Angeles […]
A music producer who says he worked on Sean “Diddy” Combs‘ 2023 album The Love Album: Off the Grid is accusing the hip-hop mogul of sexual assault and harassment, sex trafficking and various other forms of misconduct in a sprawling lawsuit filed Monday (Feb. 26).
In the complaint, filed by plaintiff Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones Jr. in New York federal court, the producer accuses Combs of “groping and touching” his anus and trying to groom him into engaging in sexual acts with Combs and other individuals, including Love Album producer Steven Aaron Jordan (a.k.a. Stevie J) and a cousin of Combs’ ex-girlfriend Yung Miami (named as a Jane Doe defendant). He also claims that Combs “forced” him to “solicit sex workers,” some of whom were underage, as well as to “perform sex acts to the pleasure of Mr. Combs.”
In one alleged incident from February 2023, Jones claims he woke up “naked, dizzy, and confused” in a “bed with two sex workers and Mr. Combs” at Combs’ home in Miami and “believes” he was drugged by Combs.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit, filed by attorney Tyrone Blackburn, names several more defendants whom Jones claims conspired with Combs in an alleged “RICO enterprise” to enable his misconduct: Universal Music Group (UMG), its subsidiary Motown Records, Combs’ label imprint Love Records, UMG chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge, former Motown CEO/chairwoman Ethiopia Habtemariam; Combs’ chief of staff, Kristina Khorram; and Combs’ son, Justin Combs. Federal RICO cases, which are based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act traditionally used to target the mafia and drug cartels, are brought to more effectively sweep up members of alleged crime rings. (Notably, the ongoing Georgia criminal case against Young Thug that alleges the rapper ran a violent Atlanta street gang is based on a Georgia statute modeled off of the federal RICO law.)
In this case, Jones claims the “RICO enterprise” in question was set up to recruit sex workers, some of them underage, and to acquire and distribute drugs and guns out of Combs’ Miami home. He accuses the participants in the alleged enterprise of keeping him under their control by threatening him with violence, ostracism from the music industry and nonpayment for work on the album, which he says he still has not been compensated for despite having allegedly produced nine tracks.
The lawsuit also brings up an alleged September 2022 incident at Chalice Recording Studio in Hollywood, during a writing and producing camp for The Love Album, that allegedly resulted in a man being shot in the stomach following a “heated conversation” between Combs, his son Justin Combs and another unnamed man. Following the incident, Jones claims Combs forced him to lie to police by telling them the man was injured in a drive-by shooting outside. Jones is suing Combs, UMG, Motown, Love Records and Chalice Recording Studio for providing “inadequate or negligent security” during the camp.
In a statement sent to Billboard, Combs’ attorney Shawn Holley said: “Lil Rod is nothing more than a liar who filed a $30 billion lawsuit shamelessly looking for an undeserved payday. His reckless name-dropping about events that are pure fiction and simply did not happen is nothing more than a transparent attempt to garner headlines. We have overwhelming, indisputable proof that his claims are complete lies. Our attempts to share this proof with Mr. Jones’ attorney, Tyrone Blackburn, have been ignored, as Mr. Blackburn refuses to return our calls. We will address these outlandish allegations in court and take all appropriate action against those who make them.”
A spokesperson for Justin Combs sent the following statement: “Justin Combs categorically denies these absurd allegations. They are all lies! This is a clear example of a desperate person taking desperate measures in hopes of a pay day. There will be legal consequences for all defamatory statements made about the Combs family.”
Representatives for UMG, Motown, Love Records, Grainge and Chalice Recording Studio did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Habtemariam could not be located for comment at press time.
Jones is asking for damages for loss of past and future income as well as “mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, emotional pain and suffering, and emotional distress”; punitive damages; and the costs of bringing the suit.
The Love Album was originally announced in May 2022 as a release on Combs’ newly formed imprint Love Records, to be released in tandem with UMG’s Motown. However, the album — which featured a laundry list of stars including Mary J. Blige, Burna Boy, John Legend, Justin Bieber and The Weeknd — was ultimately released independently in September 2023.
Jones’ lawsuit is just the latest in a string of legal accusations to be lodged against Combs over the past several months. In November, Combs’ longtime girlfriend, R&B singer Cassie, sued him for rape and physical abuse, though the case was promptly settled. He was subsequently sued by two more women for sexual assault and later by a Jane Doe who claimed Combs “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” her when she was 17. Combs has denied all of the allegations.
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 “AAG,” 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 “N.L.,” 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 “insisted” on driving her home. The complaint describes the alleged assault, which took place inside his car over the course of at least ten minutes.
“Plaintiff tried to push Lythgoe away from her and instruct Lythgoe’s driver how to return to her house, but Lythgoe continued to grab at Plaintiff, fondle her breasts, and kiss her,” the suit states. “Lythgoe even shoved his hand up Plaintiff’s skirt and penetrated her genitalia.”
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.
“It is troubling to hear of yet another alleged incident of a woman being taken advantage of and abused by a prominent public figure,” 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.
“Lythgoe shoved Abdul against the wall, then grabbed her genitals and breasts and began shoving his tongue down her throat,” 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 “discontinued in its entirety with prejudice,” 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.
“Over 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,” he explained. “Our city is built on innovation and technology, but many social media platforms end up endangering our children’s mental health, promoting addiction, and encouraging unsafe behavior. Today, we’re taking bold action on behalf of millions of New Yorkers to hold these companies accountable for their role in this crisis, and we’re 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.”
According to NYC.gov, the filing allege that the platforms “intentionally designed their platforms to purposefully manipulate and addict children and teens to social media.” Some of the features that the officials say create these conditions include “using algorithms to generate feeds that keep users on the platforms longer and encourage compulsive use” and “mechanics akin to gambling in the design of apps, which allow for anticipation and craving for likes and hearts.”
The Daily News reports a representative from Meta says that Facebook and Instagram have “over 30 tools and features” to assist parents in making social media safe for their children. Jose Castañeda, a spokesman for Google, says that YouTube also offers “parents robust controls” and says that “The allegations in this complaint are simply not true.”
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 “dig herself out of impending financial ruin” and played a key role in getting the recent Priscilla movie made.
The lawsuit, filed last year and obtained by Billboard, claims that Elvis Presley’s ex-wife partnered with a woman named Brigitte Kruse in 2022 to help develop and monetize her name and likeness rights — a move that came as Presley was allegedly “60 days from insolvency” 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 “cut off all communication” with her former partner. She claims the sudden about-face came as her extensive and time-consuming efforts on Presley’s behalf were finally paying off.
Trending on Billboard
“Though [Kruse’s 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,” reads the October lawsuit, which was first reported Wednesday (Feb. 14) by Daily Beast.
In court filings since the case was first filed, Presley’s lawyers have pushed the dismiss the lawsuit. They argue that Kruse “targeted” their client and that Priscilla split with her former partner because she had discovered that Kruse was “attempting to misappropriate Ms. Presley’s assets.”
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 Priscilla’s 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 — a role Kruse accepted even though it required her to give up her existing career and “devote her attention full-time to managing Pricilla’s life.” After allegedly discovering that Presley’s “financial position was far worse than expected,” the lawsuit claims Kruse and a colleague named Kevin Fialko immediately “sprang into action to prevent Priscilla’s financial ruin and public embarrassment.”
“Because of the upcoming movie about Priscilla’s 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,” 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 “professed to be a friend of Priscilla’s” and said he wanted to assist in Kruse and Priscilla Presley Partners’ efforts to monetize her likeness, but that shortly after he became involved, the partnership was thrown into chaos.
“The 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 Priscilla’s home, and demanding that Kruse cease and desist immediately, any and all activity on behalf of Ms. Presley,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit claims that Presley’s actions have breached the contract that she signed with Kruse when they created the entity, which was allegedly drafted by Presley’s own lawyer.
“In reliance on the agreements defendant voluntarily entered into, plaintiff has devoted substantial time and capital into increasing the value of defendant’s NIL” Priscilla Presley Partners’ lawyers say. “When defendant’s NIL and earning capacity is at its highest that it has been in decades, defendant, without notice, cut off Plaintiff’s ability to exploit that NIL for her sole benefit.”
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, Presley’s lawyers say Kruse “targeted” their client and “inserted herself” into her affairs, and had somehow “convinced” 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 Kruse’s own improper actions, not because of any other cause.
“Eventually, Ms. Presley learned that Ms. Kruse and her associate were attempting to misappropriate Ms. Presley’s assets and were engaging in other acts of wrongdoing,” Presley’s lawyers wrote in a November response. “Thus, Ms. Presley began extricating herself from Ms. Kruse’s various entanglements. In response, Ms. Kruse … utilized her control of [Priscilla Presley Partners] to orchestrate and file this Florida lawsuit.”
In technical terms, Presley’s 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 Presley’s 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 “Jane Doe,” 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 “wrestling move” 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. “She 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,” they said in a statement. “Now a successful writer and producer in the entertainment industry, Jane Doe’s traumatic experiences with Simmons echo those of so many other women who he has preyed upon for decades.”
The lawsuit was filed under the New York’s Adult Survivors Act and the New York City Gender Motivated Violence Act. Both laws contain “lookback windows,” which allow for the filing of lawsuits that wouldn’t 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 “compromising situations,” but claimed in an interview that he took and passed nine lie detector tests concerning those allegations.
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.”
