Lawsuit
Page: 5
Ye (formerly Kanye West) is facing a lawsuit from a former employee who says the rapper compared himself to Hitler and threatened her because she is Jewish.
The case, filed Tuesday (Feb. 11) in Los Angeles court, claims he subjected the unnamed woman to “antisemitic vitriol,” including texting her “Hail Hitler” and calling her “ugly” and a “bitch.” And the woman says she was “swiftly terminated” when she complained.
“Ye carried out a calculated campaign to threaten and psychologically torment Jewish people around him, specifically plaintiff,” the woman’s lawyers wrote. “There can be little doubt that Ye treats those around him, especially Jewish people and women, much worse than just a bully. He is a self-proclaimed ‘Nazi’.”
The Jane Doe accuses Ye and his Yeezy LLC of religious and gender discrimination, wrongful termination, breach of contract, and a variety of other legal wrongdoing.
The new lawsuit, one of many filed by former employees against Ye, came days after he went on an offensive tirade on X (formerly Twitter) that included antisemitic comments (“I’m a Nazi” and praise for Adolf Hitler) as well as a bizarre demand to free Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is currently in custody awaiting trial on sex crime charges. On Sunday, Ye ran a TV ad during the Super Bowl that directed viewers to an online store where they could purchase a shirt emblazoned with a swastika.
It was hardly the first time the rapper has made such statements. After a string of similar antisemitic rhetoric and other erratic behavior in October 2022, the star lost much of what was a once-formidable business empire, including fashion partnerships with Adidas, The Gap and Balenciaga, as well as his representation by Creative Artists Agency and many of his lawyers.
In Tuesday’s lawsuit, the Jane Doe plaintiff says she was hired at Ye’s Yeezy LLC as a marketing specialist in December 2023, shortly before he issued an apology (written in Hebrew) for those earlier antisemitic statements. But she says the apologetic sentiment was “short lived.”
A month later, amid renewed controversy over the cover art of his Vultures Vol. 1, the woman claims she suggested that Ye issue a statement condemning Nazism. When the message was relayed to the star himself, he allegedly responded with a text message (included in the lawsuit) reading “I Am A Nazi.”
“This not only deeply offended Doe but the loud and proud antisemitism also made her feel endangered,” her attorneys wrote.
Months later, the rapper allegedly texted her and another Jewish employee “What the fuck is everyone here getting paid?” In another screenshotted text, he allegedly followed up: “Welcome to the first day of working for Hitler.”
The abuse allegedly escalated from there, the lawsuit says, including a series of texts in June 2024 in which Ye allegedly said “Shut the f— up b—-” called her “ugly as f—” and texted “Hail Hitler.” Later, he also allegedly texted, “You what’s left after I said deathcon” — a message that Jane Doe says was intended to reference his previous antisemitic rants and meant as a threat based on her religion.
Just hours after she complained about the text messages to her manager, the lawsuit says she was sent an email from an attorney representing Yeezy terminating her employment.
A spokesman for Ye did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday (Feb. 11).
Don Henley and his longtime manager Irving Azoff are being sued by one of the men who was criminally charged — and later vindicated — for allegedly attempting to sell handwritten lyrics connected to the Eagles‘ 1976 album Hotel California, claiming they and their attorneys engaged in a “malicious prosecution” that harmed his reputation and caused him financial losses and emotional distress.
The complaint, filed in New York state court on Thursday (Feb. 6), was filed against Henley, Azoff and the firms that represented them in their case: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Loeb & Loeb. In it, Horowitz claims the parties falsely alleged that he and his two co-defendants in the criminal case “knew or had reason to believe” that the lyric sheets “had been unlawfully obtained” and nonetheless attempted to profit off of them via an online auction. However, Horowitz claims the men and their attorneys knew all along that the notes had been acquired through legal means in the first place.
Trending on Billboard
Horowitz, a rare book dealer, and his co-defendants — Rock & Roll Hall of Fame curator Craig Inciardi and memorabilia auctioneer Edward Kosinski — were criminally charged in 2022 over an alleged conspiracy to resell the lyrics that had been handwritten by Henley while working on the Eagles’ iconic Hotel California album. At the time, prosecutors had accused the three men of hiding the fact that the documents had been stolen from Henley’s home by Ed Sanders, a journalist hired by Henley and Azoff to write a never-published book on the Eagles in the late 1970s.
But in a stunning turnaround in March 2024, Manhattan prosecutors dropped the case after Henley produced new evidence previously withheld under attorney-client privilege that cast doubt on his and Azoff’s allegations. The judge in the case subsequently dismissed the charges and chastised Henley, Azoff and their attorneys for “obfuscat[ing] and hid[ing] information that they believed would be damaging to their position that the lyric sheets were stolen.”
According to Horowitz’s attorney Caitlin Robin, the evidence cited by prosecutors and the judge in dropping the charges — a series of emails between Henley, Azoff and their attorneys — proves they were aware that Sanders had legally obtained the lyric sheets in the course of writing the never-published Eagles book. Nonetheless, she alleges they “purposefully withheld any disclosure thereof because they knew it would exculpate Plaintiff GLENN HOROWITZ and essentially destroy the fraudulent allegations they made about him.”
As a result of his “unjust prosecution,” Horowitz claims he “was deprived of his liberty and suffered humiliation, defamation, media harassment, diminished reputation, loss of business and/or loss of wages amounting in more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00), in addition to mental anguish, indignity, frustration and financial loss.” The complaint further alleges that Horowitz’s wife Tracey (who is listed as a co-plaintiff) also “suffered humiliation, defamation, media harassment, diminished reputation, and mental and emotional anguish” as a result of her husband’s prosecution.
In a statement sent to Billboard, Henley and Azoff’s attorney Dan Petrocelli said, “Don Henley was a witness and a victim in a criminal trial brought by the Manhattan District Attorney after a formal indictment of Glenn Horowitz by a New York grand jury. The indictment highlighted the dark underbelly of the memorabilia business that exploited the brazen, unauthorized taking and selling of Mr. Henley’s handwritten lyrics. The only malicious prosecution involved here is the filing of this case by Mr. Horowitz.”
The Horowitzes are asking for damages “in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all the lower Courts of the State of New York.”
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Loeb & Loeb did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
Megan Thee Stallion can proceed with a defamation lawsuit accusing social media personality Milagro Gramz of waging a “campaign of harassment” against the star on behalf of Tory Lanez, a federal judge says.
The rapper sued Gramz (Milagro Cooper) last year, claiming the YouTuber had been “churning out falsehoods” about the high-profile criminal case against Lanez, in which he was convicted of shooting Megan in the foot during a 2020 dispute in the Hollywood Hills.
In a 25-page decision on Friday (Feb. 7), Judge Cecilia Altonaga denied a request by Gramz to dismiss the case, saying Megan had made a “compelling case” that the blogger had defamed her by claiming the star lied during Lanez’s trial and that she was “mentally retarded.”
“Plaintiff’s claims extend far beyond mere negligence — they paint a picture of an intentional campaign to destroy her reputation,” the judge wrote. “That is more than enough to [deny the motion to dismiss].”
The judge also refused to dismiss Megan’s other claims against Gramz, including that Gramz had violated a Florida state law by sharing a pornographic “deepfake” of the rapper. Defense attorneys had argued that Gramz had not actually shared the clip merely by “liking” it on X, but Judge Altonaga noted Friday that she’d allegedly done more than that.
“By ‘liking’ an X.com post that featured the deepfake video, the video was exhibited on defendant’s X.com account’s ‘Likes’ page,” the judge wrote. “Defendant also brought the video ‘before the public’ when she allegedly directed viewers of her post to click on her ‘Likes’ page where the video had been archived.”
The judge did dismiss one claim — Megan’s accusation of cyberstalking — but allowed her to refile the case this month to try to fix the error.
In a statement to Billboard, Gramz’s attorney Michael A. Pancier stressed that the decision was an early-stage ruling subject only to a “more lenient legal standard” and that “many of these issues will be revisited at a later stage following the completion of the discovery process.”
“This decision does not reflect a determination on the merits of the case,” Pancier said. “The plaintiff must now substantiate her claims with credible and admissible evidence.”
A rep for Megan declined to comment on the ruling.
Lanez (Daystar Peterson) was convicted in December 2022 on three felony counts over the violent 2020 incident, in which he shot at the feet of Megan during an argument following a pool party at Kylie Jenner’s house in the Hollywood Hills. In August 2023, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He has filed an appeal, which remains pending.
In an October lawsuit, Megan’s attorneys accused Gramz of repeatedly spreading falsehoods about that criminal case, including questioning whether Megan was even shot and claiming she was “caught trying to deceive the courts.” More recently, they said Gramz had pushed the “outlandish claim” that the gun Lanez used in the shooting had gone missing from evidence.
The lawsuit claimed the blogger made those claims because she was serving as a “mouthpiece and puppet” for Lanez as the singer sat behind bars. In an updated version of the lawsuit filed in December, Megan’s attorneys said prison call logs suggested that Lanez and his father had arranged to pay Gramz.
In seeking to dismiss the case, defense attorneys argued that Megan could not meet the difficult requirement of showing that Gramz had acted with “actual malice” — that she had either intentionally lied about Megan or had acted with a reckless disregard for the truth.
But in Friday’s ruling, Judge Altonaga said that the rapper’s claims, if later proven with evidence, would likely be enough to win a defamation case.
“The [lawsuit] makes a compelling case that defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff asserts that readily available information contradicted defendant’s statements at the time of publication [and that] defendant knowingly spread these falsehoods at Peterson’s direction, fully aware they were fabricated to harm plaintiff.”
“Finally, defendant seemingly profited from the defamation — gaining a larger social media following, online notoriety, and lucrative sponsorship opportunities,” the judge added.
MTV owner Viacom has filed a lawsuit claiming that Nick Cannon’s new comedy battle rap game show — called Bad vs. Wild — is a “flagrant” copycat of his long-running series Wild ’N Out.
In a case filed Monday (Feb. 7) against the streaming service Zeus Network, the cable giant claimed that the new show “goes far beyond mere imitation” and instead steals “each and every” element of Wild ’N Out, a popular hip-hop comedy show that’s aired for more than 20 seasons on MTV and VH1.
The lawsuit doesn’t name Cannon as a defendant but instead accuses Zeus of essentially poaching him. It says the new show is “cosplaying” as a Wild ‘N Out “successor,” profiting from Viacom’s years-long investment “without having to do the work of creating original content itself.”
Trending on Billboard
“In an era where original content is at a premium, Zeus has chosen the path of least resistance: stealing the fruits of Viacom’s goodwill and decades of labor and innovation, and pawning it off as its own original idea for its own financial gain,” Viacom’s lawyers wrote.
Worse yet, the lawsuit says, episodes of Bad vs. Wild (which debuted in March) have repeatedly featured “offensive and inappropriate content that glorifies violence, objectifies women, and perpetuates insidious stereotypes,” threatening to tarnish the legacy of Wild ‘N Out.
“The potential damage to Viacom and Wild ‘N Out cannot be overstated,” the company’s lawyers continued. “This blatant copying and association with offensive content threaten to erode two decades of Viacom’s carefully built reputation and goodwill. It is an attack not just on Viacom’s intellectual property, but on its very brand identity.”
The lawsuit accuses Zeus of infringing both Viacom’s copyrights to the show and also its trademarks, saying that consumers have been duped into thinking the two shows are somehow connected. The filing cites a press release that explicitly referred to the show as “Wild ‘N Out on steroids.”
Wild ’N Out, which debuted on MTV in 2005, features teams of comedy and hip-hop stars battling in a series of competitions, capped off by a freestyle battle and then a musical performance. Over the years — the show has run for 21 seasons — it has boasted guests including Snoop Dogg, Kanye West, A$AP Rocky and Lil Wayne.
In this week’s lawsuit, Viacom claimed that Zeus had stolen almost all of the show’s core elements when it created Bad v. Wild. The two names are “extremely similar”; the new logo “copies the look, typeface, and arrangement”; the format and stage design of the two shows are “nearly identical”; and, of course, they feature the same host.
“Zeus enlists Mr. Cannon as host of a show that maliciously infringes upon the intellectual property of Wild ‘N Out … and has tainted Mr. Cannon’s image as on-camera talent for Wild ‘N Out,” Viacom’s lawyers wrote.
Though it doesn’t name him as defendant, the lawsuit does accuse Cannon of wrongdoing.
Viacom’s lawyers say he’s currently subject to his contract from Wild, which prohibits him from doing anything that that would “tarnish” his image as the show’s host and bans him from using “any characters or materials” from the show in other projects. By producing and hosting Bad v. Wild, the lawsuit says Cannon has violated that agreement.
But rather than sue Cannon directly for that alleged breach of contract, the lawsuit instead pins the legal blame entirely on Zeus — accusing the network of “intentional interference” with Viacom’s deal with Cannon by “inducing” him to break it. And the company claims it’s not the first time.
“Zeus — having previously violated exclusivity provisions when working with Viacom talent, and having knowledge of industry custom and practice — was aware that Mr. Cannon is under contract,” the company’s lawyers wrote. “The damage caused by Zeus’s interference with Mr. Cannon’s contract is magnified by the wave of negative publicity which emanated from Zeus’s unoriginal content and colorist and sizeist stereotyping.”
Reps for both Zeus and Cannon did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire complaint here:
Sean “Diddy” Combs has been hit with a pair of new sexual assault lawsuits that allege he drugged and sexually assaulted the plaintiffs and/or forced them to engage in sex acts with others during a “group-sex” party at Trump Hotel in midtown Manhattan.
Filed in New York state court on Tuesday (Feb. 4), the lawsuits — the latest to be lodged by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee against the disgraced hip-hop mogul — were filed by Jane Doe plaintiffs who say they were involved in the New York hip-hop scene in the ’80s and ’90s.
The first complaint was filed by a woman who says she was “an active member of New York’s hip-hop industry from the 1980s onward” and “appeared in numerous music videos for varying hip hop artists, was employed as a hip hop dancer for live productions, as well as having roles in major motion pictures.” According to the complaint, she was subject to “sexual assault, coercion, abuse and violence either at the hands of, or direction of Combs” on numerous occasions.
In the first alleged incident, the woman claims she was drugged and “forced to participate in group sexual activity” with Combs and others while attending (and being prevented from leaving) a so-called “shadow party” held at a New York bar sometime in the 1990s.
Later in the decade, while allegedly dating Combs’ security guard, the woman says she attended another of Combs’ parties at the five-story New York nightclub Limelight, where she says “group-sex parties” were occurring on the top two floors. After the party, she claims Combs and the security guard took her and a friend to a penthouse at a Trump hotel in midtown Manhattan, where she says she was “physically and sexually assaulted” by the guard as Combs watched. Later that evening, she claims she and her friend were forced to take “ecstasy or [a] similar ‘party’ drug” and “engage in a group sex activity that [they] did not want to participate in.”
This alleged incident is echoed in the second lawsuit filed on Tuesday by a woman who claims she was “a part of the hip-hop scene that was developing in New York City” in the ’80s and ’90s and “appeared in numerous music videos for various hip-hop artists and participated in other projects within the industry.”
After attending a party also allegedly held at the Limelight — which reads like the same event described by the first plaintiff — the woman claims she and a friend were taken to the Trump Hotel in midtown Manhattan against their will, drugged “and forced to participate in group-sex activity during which she [was] sexually assaulted over the next several hours. For instance, Plaintiff was vaginally raped by a club promoter at Combs’ direction, while Combs observed.”
The woman also outlines a second incident she says occurred after she was hired to serve as a “bottle-service attendant” at a party Combs hosted in the Hamptons in 1997. Shortly after arriving at the event, the woman says she and others hired for the event were encouraged by Combs to drink from coolers and offered marijuana, after which she “began to feel woozy, slipping in and out of consciousness.” At this point, she says she was “sexually assaulted and vaginally raped by Combs’ associates, at Combs’ direction, while Combs was present.” After suspecting the assault was videotaped, she says she reached out to Combs “to request that he delete the video, but Combs refused to comply.”
The woman further alleges she “suffered several incidences of sexual assault at Combs’ hands while traveling to other states, including California,” though only the New York incidents are included in the complaint.
Both women are asking for compensatory and punitive damages from Combs and his various Combs Global businesses, which are named as co-defendants for “enabl[ing]” the alleged abuse.
A representative for Combs and Combs Global did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.
Combs is currently awaiting the start of his criminal trial, which is set to commence on May 5, at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He is charged with running a criminal enterprise aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” Among other accusations, Combs is alleged to have held so-called “freak offs” during which he and others drugged victims and coerced them into having sex. He is also accused of acts of violence and intimidation to silence his alleged victims. Combs faces a potential life prison sentence if convicted on all charges.
HipHopWired Featured Video
TDE, also known as Top Dawg Entertainment and the label Kendrick Lamar was once signed to, is the target of sexual misconduct allegations after two women filed a lawsuit against the label. The lawsuit claims that TDE executives and other connected officials allegedly harassed, sexually assaulted, and breached contracts.
Via a report from Newsweek, a pair of unnamed women shared in the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court that Top Dawg Entertainment (TDE) executives and staff members carried out the aforementioned alleged acts and that those in charge ignored their concerns and neglected to address them. The Jane Does wrote in the suit that a “pervasive culture of sexual harassment within TDE, implicating some of its highest-ranking executives.”
The first Jane Doe says she was employed by the label in 2019 and accused chief marketing officer Brandon Tiffith, also known as Big B The Chef, of sexual battery along with making undesirable sexual advances. Jane Doe added that TDE president Anthony Tiffith, Jr., also known as Moosa, and is the son of the label’s father “Top Dawg,” sexually harassed her. Beyond those claims, Jane Doe says the label neglected to honor her contract for services rendered.
The second Jane Doe wrote that she endured several moments of sexual harassment and assault from label staff members while working on site. Jane Doe also claimed she was made to drink alcohol while under the legal age with the aim of “sexual exploitation.”
Both Jane Does retained the services of attorney Shounak Dharap of Arns Davis Law, who offered a statement regarding the matter.
“This lawsuit presents a glaring example of the systemic abuse and exploitation in the entertainment industry,” Dharap said to the outlet. “Our clients trusted TDE to act with integrity and professionalism. Instead, their trust was betrayed in profoundly damaging ways. They’re bringing this lawsuit because they refuse to be silenced, and because they intend to hold TDE accountable in court.”
Newsweek several mentions of artists currently signed to the label and of Kendrick Lamar, who went on to begin his imprint, pgLang, with Dave Free in 2020. The lawsuit filing is a curious one considering Lamar has made several unfounded allegations regarding his rival Drake that include sexual harassment and targeting young women.
There has not been an official statement from the label as of yet.
—
Photo: Getty
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Gilbert Flores / Getty
Tony Buzbee’s character is now again in question. Jay-Z has blasted the lawyer for not meeting his client prior to filing the lawsuit against him.
As per TMZ, Jay-Z’s legal team is taking umbrage with how Tony Buzbee goes about his business. In documents obtained by the celebrity gossip site Hov’s counsel call out that the controversial lawyer never met Jane Doe before filing a sexual assault claim against the rapper and Diddy. The new filing says the Texas-based attorney blatantly missed several “factual inconsistencies” in her story and much more.
Related Stories
“Initially, he deflected, saying Plaintiff’s ‘case was referred to [his] firm by another, who vetted it prior to sending it’ to him, and that his firm would ‘continue to vet her claims and collect corroborating data,” the documentation reads. “Now, he concedes that he did not even meet with Plaintiff before signing his name to the complaint, and fails to identify any evidence that corroborates anything his client alleged.”
Jay-Z’s lawyer also went on to question Buzbee’s business principles. “Mr. Carter seeks only to hold Mr. Buzbee to the ethical standards that constrain any responsible attorney who would solemnly sign his name to allegations in court.” TMZ contacted Tony about the suit against him to which he called “weak and desperate.” He also says that he not only interviewed Jane Doe prior to filing the rape lawsuit against Jay-Z and Diddy but four other lawyers did too.
Back in December an unidentified woman claimed that she was sexually assaulted by both moguls at an MTV Video Music Awards after-party back in 2000. During an interview with NBC News there were several inconsistencies in her responses related to the timing, her father picking her up and individuals she spoke to that day.
A Detroit rapper is suing Lyft for discrimination over allegations that one of the company’s drivers told her she was too large to fit inside his car.
In a lawsuit filed in Michigan court Monday (Jan. 27), Dank Demoss (Dajua Blanding) says the driver of a black Mercedes sedan told her during the Jan. 18 incident that she was “too big” for the backseat of his car and that “his tires were not capable of supporting plaintiff’s weight.”
“Defendant Lyft … unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff based on her weight,” Blanding’s attorneys write in the lawsuit, which was obtained by Billboard. Blanding, who has described herself as a “Big Beautiful Woman” on social media, says she was embarrassed, humiliated and suffered “mental anguish.”
The lawsuit comes after Blanding posted an alleged video of the incident to TikTok and other platforms, showing her arguing with the driver over his seeming refusal to take her.
Trending on Billboard
In the video, she can be heard telling the driver, “I can fit in this car,” after which he quickly responds, “Believe me, you can’t.” After telling Blanding that he’s “been in this situation before,” the driver can be heard saying that she needs to order a pricier “Uber XL” to accommodate her size.
Blanding’s post on TikTok has been viewed more than 345,000 times; another clip on Instagram has been liked more than 7,000 times.
In her complaint filed Monday, Blanding says the driver’s refusal violates Michigan’s civil rights laws, which prohibit any discrimination for public accommodations based on a variety of factors, including a person’s weight.
“Plaintiff’s weight was at least one factor that made a difference in defendants’ treatment of plaintiff and subjected her to a hostile environment,” her lawyers write.
In a statement to Billboard, a Lyft spokesperson declined to comment on the specifics of a pending legal action, but stressed that its driver regulations “explicitly prohibit harassment or discrimination.”
“Lyft unequivocally condemns all forms of discrimination — we believe in a community where everyone is treated with equal respect and mutual kindness,” the company said.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Bernard Beanz Smalls / Bernard Beanz Smalls,
We are not even a month into 2025 and Jim Jones keeps going viral. Capo says he sees nothing wrong with Drake suing Universal Music Group.
As spotted on HipHopDX Jim Jones recently paid a visit to the Broke N’ Frontin podcast. While he discussed a variety of topics regarding his career, the music industry and more it was his very hot take about Champagne Papi that took many people by surprise. “He’s not snitching on nobody. He’s not in a court of law, he’s not personally suing Kendrick Lamar, which everybody seems to think that this lawsuit is about,” he explained. “He’s suing UMG, which is the biggest company that has the biggest bag, n***a.”
Jomo went on to remind everyone that the lines behind this lawsuit have been blurred in the media and made sure to clarify that Drake is not suing Kendrick Lamar. “Y’all associating motherf***ing brussel sprouts with apples. It’s two totally different things. If it was any other thing, I would call a red flag. But this has got no reflection of the street or rap culture.” To hear Jim Jones tell it the Hip-Hop community should be happy for Drake if he is successful in this legal battle. “When Tracy Morgan caught that bag, we were happy for him. So how the f*** we not going be happy about somebody getting a bag from one of the biggest companies that’s been raping everybody anyway?”
You can see Jim Jones discuss Drake, Harlem, Cam’ron and more below.
Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt have joined more than 20 other property owners in suing the City of Los Angeles and the L.A. Department of Water and Power, claiming the city’s decision to “drain” a local reservoir left firefighters without enough water to fight the devastating Palisades Fire that destroyed their home.
In the complaint, which was filed Tuesday (Jan. 21), Pratt, Montag and their co-plaintiffs accuse L.A.’s Department of Water and Power (LADWP) of making “the conscious decision to operate the water supply system with the reservoir drained and unusable as a ‘cost-saving’ measure,” leading hydrants in the Pacific Palisades to “fail…within a span of 12 hours” because the tanks that fed them were not replenished by water from the “empty” Santa Ynez Reservoir.
The lawsuit cites multiple public officials, including Los Angeles County Public Works director Mark Pestrella, for allegedly acknowledging the failures that led to the fire’s uncontrolled spread through a heavily populated area. It claims that “Defendants also designed the water system for public use such that it would not have enough water pressure to fight an urban fire” despite knowing the region was prone to destructive blazes.
“LADWP and City of Los Angeles had a duty to properly construct, inspect, maintain and operate its water supply system,” reads the complaint, filed by attorneys Peter McNulty, Brett Rosenthal and E. Kirk Wood. “The Palisades Fire was an inescapable and unavoidable consequence of the water supply system operated by LADWP and City of Los Angeles as it was planned and constructed. The system necessarily failed, and this failure was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer the losses alleged in this Complaint.”
A key reason for the city and the LADWP’s failure, according to the suit, was its stated decision to leave the reservoir “empty for nearly a year” in order “to seek contractor bids rather than using in-house personnel to repair” it.
“This stated public purpose was far outweighed by the substantial risk posed to Pacific Palisades by wildfires,” the complaint continues. “The degree of damage that resulted from the Palisades Fire far outweighed any benefit that could have been realized by outsourcing and delaying repairs to the Santa Ynez Reservoir.”
Montag, Pratt and their co-plaintiffs are seeking damages including “costs of repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost personal and/or real property” and “loss of wages, earning capacity, and/or business profits or proceeds and/or any related business interruption losses and displacement expenses,” among other relief.
The City of Los Angeles and the LADWP did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
Pratt became a ubiquitous presence on TikTok earlier this month after his and Montag’s home was destroyed in the massive Palisades Fire, with the reality star encouraging fans to stream Montag’s 2010 album Superficial to help them recover from their losses. Thanks to those efforts, Superficial and its songs have appeared on multiple Billboard charts. This week, the album notched a No. 54 debut on the Billboard 200 with more than 15,000 equivalent album units in the U.S. the week ending Jan. 16, according to Luminate, with more than 3.5 million on-demand official streams in the tracking week and 12,000 downloads sold.
Since breaking out on Jan. 7, the ongoing Palisades Fire has burned more than 23,000 acres, destroyed more than 6,000 structures and killed 11 people. It is now 72% contained. A second blaze, the Eaton Fire in Altadena, has burned more than 14,000 acres, destroyed more than 9,000 structures and killed 17. That fire is now at 95% containment.