State Champ Radio Lawsuit
Page: 6
A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled against Nirvana and revived a child pornography lawsuit filed by the man who appeared as a nude baby on the cover of the band’s 1991 album Nevermind.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Spencer Elden, now in his 30s, claimed the photo – one of the most iconic album covers in rock history – violated federal child pornography laws by displaying a sexualized image of a minor. But a lower ruled last year that he had waited far too long to bring his lawsuit.
In a decision overturning that ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that each new republication of the image – including a highly-publicized 30th anniversary re-release in 2021 – could constitute a new “injury” to Elden that would reset the statute of limitations.
“Victims of child pornography may suffer a new injury upon the republication of the pornographic material,” Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta wrote for a three-judge panel. “This conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court’s view that every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the victim’s abuse.”
The ruling does not mean that Elden has won the case. The lawsuit will now return to a lower court, where he must actually prove that the image meets the definition of child pornography – something Nirvana vigorously disputes and some legal experts doubt.
In a statement to Billboard, Nirvana’s attorney Bert Deixler called the ruling a “procedural setback” that did not affect their core arguments: “We will defend this meritless case with vigor and expect to prevail.”
An attorney for Elden did not immediately return a request for comment.
Originally released Sept. 24, 1991, Nevermind reached the top spot on the Billboard 200 in January 1992 and ultimately spent 554 weeks on the chart. The album has sold more than 30 million copies and is widely considered one of the most influential in the history of popular music.
The album’s cover — a nude infant swimming in a pool chasing after a dollar attached to a fishhook — was long interpreted as an edgy critique of greed and capitalism. But in his 2021 civil lawsuit, Elden claimed it was something else entirely: the kind of “lascivious” display of a minor’s genitals that’s prohibited under federal child pornography statutes.
“Spencer’s true identity and legal name are forever tied to the commercial sexual exploitation he experienced as a minor which has been distributed and sold worldwide from the time he was a baby to the present day,” he claimed at the time.
In addition to Nirvana’s corporate entity, the lawsuit also named Kurt Cobain’s estate, Universal Music Group, Dave Grohl and a number of other companies and individuals. The lawsuit was a civil action, and no allegations of criminal wrongdoing by anyone have been raised.
Nirvana sharply disputed that the image amounted to child pornography, but argued first that the case should be dismissed for a simpler reason: the statute of limitations. They cited the fact that Elden had seemingly endorsed his role in rock history on a number of occasions, including prior to the cutoff year for the 10-year statute of limitations.
“Long before 2011, as Elden has pled, Elden knew about the photograph, and knew that he (and not someone else) was the baby in the photograph,” the band claimed in its motion to dismiss the case. “He has been fully aware of the facts of both the supposed ‘violation’ and ‘injury’ for decades.”
In a ruling in September 2022, a federal judge agreed with Nirvana’s arguments. He ruled that the 10-year time limit began when a victim “reasonably discovers” either the crime or the injury caused by it – and that under either time limit, Elden had clearly filed his case too late.
But in Thursday’s decision, the Ninth Circuit said the time limits were more like those used in defamation cases and other “dignitary torts,” where a new repetition of the offending publication could give grounds to sue, despite the statute of limitations.
“The online dissemination of child pornography haunts victims long after their original images or videos are created,” the court wrote. “As the Supreme Court has explained, the victim’s knowledge of publication of the visual material increases the emotional and psychic harm suffered by the child.”
The court added later: “If a victim learns a defendant has distributed child pornography and does not sue, but then later learns the defendant has done so again many years later, the statute of limitations … does not prevent the plaintiff from bringing a claim based on that new injury.”
SiriusXM is facing a lawsuit from New York’s attorney general over allegations that the satellite radio and streaming service has made it “extremely difficult” for listeners to cancel their subscriptions.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Dec. 20) in Manhattan court, Attorney General Letitia James’ office accused SiriusXM of subjecting canceling customers to “a lengthy and burdensome endurance contest,” which allegedly requires phone conversations with a live agent and extended time spent on hold.
“Sirius deliberately wastes its subscribers’ time even though it has the ability to process cancellations with the click of a button,” attorneys from James’ office wrote in the lawsuit. “The only reason Sirius requires cancelling subscribers to interact with a live agent at all is to maximize its opportunity to retain them as subscribers.”
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, James said it followed an investigation that showed SiriusXM was “trapping consumers” with its cancellation process, including by training its employees “not take ‘no’ for an answer.”
“Having to endure a lengthy and frustrating process to cancel a subscription is a stressful burden no one looks forward to, and when companies make it hard to cancel subscriptions, it’s illegal,” James said. “Consumers should be able to cancel a subscription they no longer use or need without any issues, and companies have a legal duty to make their cancellation process easy.”
Following the filing of the lawsuit, a spokeswoman for SiriusXM said the company would “vigorously defend against these baseless allegations,” saying that they “grossly mischaracterize” its practices.
“It’s telling that the New York Attorney General issued a press release before providing SiriusXM with a copy of the complaint,” the company statement said. “Like a number of consumer businesses, we offer a variety of options for customers to sign up for or cancel their SiriusXM subscription.”
According to the new lawsuit, SiriusXM automatically renews subscriptions at the end of a term unless a user calls on the phone to cancel. The lawsuit claims that users are sometimes forced to wait as long as 25 minutes just to connect with an agent, who then subject them to a “six-part script” in which they are trained to repeatedly refuse to actually terminate the subscription.
“Sirius requires its live agents to present a series of renewal offers to retain the consumer as a subscriber,” the AG’s office wrote in the lawsuit. “But when a consumer declines an offer, or refuses to hear further offers, Sirius instructs its agents not to take ‘no’ for an answer.”
By doing so, SiriusSM forces subscribers to “devote inordinate amounts of time, patience, and stamina trying to cancel a subscription they no longer wish to pay for,” the lawsuit says, even though they have a “legal and contractual right to cancel anytime using a process that is simple and efficient.”
A California appeals court ruled Wednesday (Dec. 13) that Marilyn Manson’s former assistant can sue him for sexual assault, overturning an earlier decision that said she waited too long to bring her case.
In a 24-page opinion, California’s Second Appellate District revived a lawsuit filed by Ashley Walters that claims Manson subjected her to brutal treatment, including sexual harassment and discrimination, during the year that she worked for him from 2010 to 2011.
A lower court had ruled last year that Walters’ lawsuit, filed in 2021, was barred by the statute of limitations, which requires such cases to be filed within two years. But on Wednesday, the appeals court said Walters’ case was fair game under the so-called delayed discovery rule, as she claims the trauma of the incidents caused her to suppress the memories until 2020.
“Until she received diagnosis and treatment, Walters [says she] was unable to remember the repressed events, and once she did recall them, she was unable to immediately identify these events as abuse,” the court wrote. “These allegations of suppressed memories and psychological blocking are sufficient to withstand [dismissal].”
A representative for Manson declined to comment on the ruling. An attorney for Walters did not immediately return a request for comment.
Walters was one of several women who accused Manson of sexual abuse in 2021. His former fiancé Evan Rachel Wood accused him of grooming and sexual abuse on Twitter in February 2021, and then others, including Game of Thrones actress Esmé Bianco and model Ashley Morgan Smithine, filed lawsuits against him.
Manson has denied all of the accusations, and several of the cases have been dismissed or settled. Manson later sued Wood for defamation, claiming she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” other women to make such allegations, though that case was largely dismissed earlier this year.
In her lawsuit, Walters claimed that Manson subjected her to “sexual exploitation, manipulation and psychological abuse” while she worked for him as a personal assistant. The alleged abuse included whipping her and throwing her against a wall in a “a drug-induced rage”; forcing her to stay awake for 48 hours by feeding her cocaine; and having “offered” her sexually to friends and associates.
In June 2022, the case was dismissed for being filed past the statute of limitations. Walters argued then that she had suppressed the memories of Manson’s abuse until other women began coming forward, but the judge said during a hearing that he had not seen “sufficient facts” to invoke the delayed-discovery rule.
In Wednesday’s ruling overturning that decision, the appeals court did not say that Walters’ accusations against Manson were true. Instead, it merely said that her allegations were enough for the case to survive being dismissed at the outset. The court recounted various claims that, if proven true, would mean that Walters had truly not discovered the abuse until 2020.
“The complaint described the support group Walters joined in October 2020 and recounted the stories shared by the other abused women that ‘began to unlock new memories [Walters] repressed long ago as a result of her psychological trauma by being manipulated and threatened by Warner during and after her employment,’” the court wrote. “The complaint also described how Walters began therapy in November 2020 and was diagnosed the following month with complex posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder.”
The ruling sends the case back to the trial court, where the parties will engage in more litigation, conduct discovery and move toward an eventual trial.
If you or someone you know has experienced sexual violence and need support and/or resources, reach out to RAINN and the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800-656-HOPE) for free, confidential help 24/7.
Lil Durk is facing a lawsuit that claims he signed deals with two different entities for the same song rights — a move that one of the buyers now calls a “manifest fraud.”
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Dec. 6) in Manhattan federal court, a fintech firm called Exceed Talent Capital says Durk (real name Durk Derrick Banks) agreed to grant the company the recording royalties from his song “Bedtime” even though he had already signed an exclusive deal with Sony’s Alamo Records.
“Despite defendants’ unambiguous contractual representations and warranties regarding their rights in the Banks recording, Exceed has now learned that Banks previously had assigned to a third party the exact same rights,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
The lawsuit claims that the move by Durk — who reached No. 2 on the Hot 100 earlier this year with his “All My Life” — caused Exceed to incur more than $12 million in damages.
“As defendants have failed and refused to acknowledge any responsibility for their intentional misrepresentations and material contractual breaches, let alone take action to rectify the same, Exceed was compelled to bring the present action to obtain legal redress,” the company wrote.
According to the complaint, Exceed agreed to pay Durk $600,000 for the recording rights to “Bedtime.” The company says it wanted to package Durk’s track into a fractional investment vehicle, which would allow investors to buy the right to receive ongoing royalties to the song.
“Where I’m from, few own anything,” the rapper said in a press release announcing Exceed’s royalties investment product. “As The Voice of the Trenches and for my label OTF, I’m always looking for ways to expand and give back to my people. Exceed makes it possible for my fans to become part of my team and share in our success together.”
But in May, Exceed received a cease-and-desist from Alamo. The label informed the fintech firm that Durk was “signed to an exclusive recording agreement with Alamo” and that he did not possess the right to sell his recording royalties to anyone.
“Rather, as Alamo informed Exceed, Alamo possesses those (and a number of further) exclusive rights pursuant to an agreement that Alamo entered into with Banks [in 2021], well over a year before defendants entered into, respectively, the [agreement with Exceed].”
Exceed says it demanded that Durk either fix the situation or refund $450,000 that had already been paid, but that he “utterly ignored” those requests. The lawsuit says the debacle forced Exceed to cancel the sale after it had already “expended significant time, effort and financial resources” in getting it approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
“Exceed was compelled … to return the funds that had been invested by third parties in the Offering, further significantly damaging Exceed’s reputation and relationships with its partners and investors,” the company wrote.
HipHopWired Featured Video
CLOSE
Boosie Badazz might be the first rapper to be told to “get over it” after someone blatantly stole his lyrics and hook for a song. After Rod Wave recorded and released the track “Long Journey” without giving Boosie any writing or publishing credit, the Lousiana rapper says he’s ready to get litigious with his younger peer.
In recent Instagram Live videos, Boosie Badazz explained that he and Rod Wave did try to work things out behind the scenes over the track “Long Journey,” which appears on Wave’s Nostalgia album. The track shares the same name as Boosie’s 2010 track and has the same chorus.
In one video, Boosie says he would’ve called off the suit for $200,000 and 25% in royalties going forward but Wave tried to talk Boosie down on the cost according to his account. Boosie also raised a fair point in saying that the use of the track and him speaking out from a legal standpoint made fans, quote, “choose sides.”
In another video, Boosie shares that he doesn’t own 100% of “Long Journey” but he does have songwriting and publishing credits on the track and just wants his fair share. The video below displays Boosie’s side of things.
The pushback from fans without law degrees is that they’re framing Boosie Badazz as trying to shake down Rod Wave for money he doesn’t deserve. Further, some are speculating that the label that put out Boosie’s “Long Journey” track might be pulling a fast one but that doesn’t explain if Wave and his producers actually cleared and paid for the use of the song and hook.
Check out some reactions from X, formerly known as Twitter, below.
—
Photo: Todd Kirkland / Getty
Online investigator and YouTube personality Spencer Cornelia — known for his investigative video series on the music industry, money in hip-hop and get-rich-quick social influencers — has prevailed in a long-running defamation lawsuit filed by Derek Moneyberg, the online persona of self-proclaimed wealth coach Dale Buczkowski.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Buczkowski operates a number of big-ticket wealth management coaching services, including his “Mastermind Network” — which charges users a $20,000 initiation fee and a $5,000 annual renewal fee — and his “1-ON-1 Training,” which starts at $75,000 per year, according to his attorney Tamara Beatty Peterson.
The defamation suit — filed on June 21, 2021, in U.S. District Court in Nevada — accused Cornelia of making false and defamatory statements against Buczkowski during two interviews with a former friend and associate of Buczkowski named John Mulvehill, whom Buczkowski also sued. During the interviews with Cornelia, Mulvehill questioned Buczkowski’s academic credentials and suggested Buczkowski’s success was due in part to criminal behavior. On a later broadcast, Cornelia openly mused about nominating Buczkowski for his annual “Charlatan of the Year” award.
Over the course of several months in summer 2023, U.S. District Court Judge James C Mahan dismissed the complaints against both Mulvehill and Cornelia. On July 23, Mahan ruled in favor of Mulvehill, finding that Buczkowski lacked jurisdiction to file his lawsuit in Nevada since Buczkowski couldn’t provide any evidence he lived in the state beyond “a handful of pieces of mail.”
Then, in late September, Judge Mahan tossed the defamation charges filed against Cornelia, ruling that Buczkowski was a public figure — a designation that requires a finding that Cornelia acted with actual malice, meaning “a statement is made with falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.”
“Here, all of the allegedly defamatory statements were uttered by Mulvehill, not Cornelia. Cornelia was simply interviewing Mulvehill,” Mahan wrote in his September ruling. “Regardless of this fact, the evidence in the record shows that Cornelia did not act with reckless disregard in conducting his interview with Mulvehill,” noting that “Cornelia published his videos based on reasonable information he received from reliable sources.”
That included a video from a former employee of Buczkowski “who corroborated claims about plaintiffs’ unethical business practices and their using young, unqualified people to write the instructional and promotional material for plaintiffs’ courses,” Mahan wrote. In his deposition, Buczkowski was asked about his claims that he had been interviewed by major magazines and television outlets seeking his financial acuity but was unable to name a publication he hadn’t paid to be featured in.
“Even if Cornelia were mistaken, his conduct is not remotely close to constituting reckless disregard. Thus, defendants did not act with actual malice, and the court grants their motion for summary judgment.”
Buczkowski has already filed an appeal of the ruling, and Cornelia has indicated he too plans to appeal Judge Mahan’s denial of Cornelia’s anti-SLAPP motion — a type of request that asks the court to dismiss a case on grounds that it attacks protected speech. Had Mahan granted the motion, Buczkowski could be found liable for Cornelia’s legal expenses.
“I feel incredibly relieved that the judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all claims. It was the correct ruling and another reminder to angry litigants that the legal system will deter those attempting to engage in lawfare,” Cornelia told Billboard in a statement.
“Because Moneyberg’s only interest is dragging this case as long as possible and attempting to defeat an underfunded litigant by spending his way to victory, he decided to appeal the judge’s ruling,” Cornelia continued. “I am excited for the finality of this case following the appeals process and seeing a judgment against Moneyberg for a significant amount of money. I will be pursuing him for 100% of my attorneys fees when this case is over.”
Billboard reached out to representatives for Buczkowski and did not receive a response.
Rapper Polo G is suing a European tour booking firm over canceled plans for a string of concerts, claiming that the company continued to advertise the shows anyway — actions he calls “a shocking and outrageous fraud.”
In a complaint filed Monday (Nov. 27) in New York federal court, attorneys for the rapper (real name Taurus Bartlett) accused Netherlands-based J. Noah B.V. of violating his intellectual property rights, claiming the company “lied to the public” by continuing to promote shows “they knew would not occur.”
“Bartlett’s counsel demanded that defendants immediately remove all uses of Bartlett’s client’s name and image from the website, from Instagram, and from all other social media channels,” Polo G’s lawyers wrote. “Inexcusably, defendants failed to do so, and ignored this demand entirely.”
“Even more egregiously, J Noah’s Instagram account continued to contain advertisements for alleged performances by Bartlett … that defendants are fully aware would not be occurring,” the rapper’s lawyers added.
Those splashy allegations are layered on top of a more run-of-the-mill underlying contract dispute over an agreement for 10 concerts, which Polo G’s lawyers say J. Noah has “wrongly” accused the rapper of breaching.
In the complaint, Polo G seeks a ruling that he had “no obligation to perform” at the shows because he sustained an “injury that prevents him from performing” — a valid reason under the contract, his lawyers say. On the contrary, he claims that it’s actually J. Noah that breached the deal by failing to pay his full $495,000 in fees as required under the contract.
But the lawsuit also goes much further than that — turning a contract dispute into intellectual property litigation by claiming that J. Noah then continued to wrongfully use Polo G’s “name, likeness and trademark” even after the deal had been terminated.
“Through these knowingly false advertisements of fictitious concert performances using the Polo G Mark and Plaintiff’s image, Defendants have engaged in knowingly false advertising—thereby committing a fraud on the public and causing irreparable harm to the Polo G Mark and Plaintiff’s reputation,” Polo G’s lawyers wrote.
A spokesperson for J. Noah did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Sean “Diddy” Combs recently settled with Casandra “Cassie” Ventura after the ex-girlfriend of the mogul filed a lawsuit alleging a series of crimes including sexual assault and sex trafficking. Now, two more lawsuits have been filed with Guy vocalist Aaron Hall also linked to Diddy in one of the filings.
As reported by The Guardian late last week, Joi Dickerson-Neal, a former Syracuse University student, claims that in 1991, she was drugged and physically assaulted by Combs who also allegedly filmed the assault and shared the footage via details found in a lawsuit filing from last week.
Dickerson-Neal, who starred in one of Diddy’s music videos, says that the shared footage of the assault caused her to suffer from a series of mental health issues, naming the act a form of revenge porn.
According to Dickerson-Neal’s legal team, she was encouraged to come forth about the assault after Cassie filed her lawsuit. In Cassie’s lawsuit, the singer claimed Combs enacted a number of heinous crimes that included sex trafficking, physical abuse, and more.
Ben Brafman, an attorney for Combs, said of the settlement between his client and Cassie that it did not signal “an admission of wrongdoing” and maintains his client is innocent of the claims made in the lawsuit.
In another report from Rolling Stone, the third such lawsuit filed by an unnamed woman was filed by way of the Adult Survivors Act last week with the complaint from Jane Doe alleging that Combs and Hall raped her and a friend in the early 1990s. The report cited the years 1990 and 1991 when the alleged rape took place. According to the filing, the unnamed victim claims that she and the friend met with Combs and Hall at an event hosted by MCA Records, which distributed Uptown Records.
The alleged incident took place at Hall’s apartment, according to the filing, with the men offering the women drinks and taking turns assaulting them. Days later, the lawsuit claims that Diddy went looking for Jane Doe’s friend and physically assaulted her out of concern that she would alert the woman he was seeing at the time about what took place at Hall’s apartment. The suit from Jane Doe also nanes MCA Music Entertainment and Geffen Records as defendants.
In response to the two lawsuits, a spokesperson for Combs sent the outlet a statement that read, “These are fabricated claims falsely alleging misconduct from over 30 years ago and filed at the last minute. This is nothing but a money grab. Because of Mr. Combs’ fame and success, he is an easy target for anonymous accusers who lie without conscience or consequence for financial benefit. The New York Legislature surely did not intend or expect the Adult Survivors Act to be exploited by scammers. The public should be skeptical and not rush to accept these bogus allegations.”
—
Photo: Getty
Two more women have come forward to accuse Sean “Diddy” Combs of sexual abuse, one week after the music mogul settled a separate lawsuit with the singer Cassie that contained allegations of rape and physical abuse.
Both of the new suits were filed Thursday (Nov. 23) on the eve of the expiration of the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law permitting victims of sexual abuse a one-year window to file civil action regardless of the statute of limitations.
The filings detail acts of sexual assault, beatings and forced drugging allegedly committed in the early 1990s by Combs, then a talent director, party promoter and rising figure in New York City’s hip-hop community.
One of the accusers, Joi Dickerson, said she was a 19-year-old student at Syracuse University when she agreed to meet Combs at a restaurant in Harlem in 1991. After their date, Combs “intentionally drugged” her, then brought her home and sexually assaulted her, according to the filing.
Without her knowledge, Combs videotaped the assault and later shared it with several friends in the music industry, the suit alleges. The public exposure sent Dickerson into a “tailspin,” contributing to severe depression that landed her in the hospital and forced her to drop out of college.
In a separate lawsuit filed Thursday, an unnamed woman accused Combs and an R&B singer, Aaron Hall, of sexually assaulting her and a friend, then beating her several days later.
The woman — identified only as Jane Doe — said that she and her roommate returned to Hall’s home with him and Combs after a music industry event in 1990 or 1991. The accuser said she was coerced into having sex with Combs. Afterward, as she was getting dressed, “Hall barged into the room, pinned her down and forced Jane Doe to have sex with him,” the suit states.
When the victim later spoke to her friend, who is also not named, she learned that her friend “had been forced to have sex with Combs and Hall in another room,” according to the suit. “Upon information and belief, when Combs finished with Jane Doe, he and Hall switched, and they commenced assaulting Jane Doe’s friend,” the suit states.
A few days later, an “irate” Combs allegedly showed up at the home of the two women in an attempt to stop them from speaking out about the abuse. He then choked the woman identified as Jane Doe until she passed out, the suit states.
In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Combs denied the allegations, accusing the two women of seeking to exploit the New York law that temporarily extended the statute of limitations.
An email inquiry to Hall was not returned.
Tyrone Blackburn, an attorney for the unnamed accuser, said his client was in the process of securing medical documents and witness statements to support her suit, which was filed late Thursday “in an effort to preserve the statute of limitations.”
The suit brought by Dickerson notes that the victim filed police reports in New York and New Jersey after the abuse. Inquiries to the New York City Police Department were not immediately returned. It was not clear which other jurisdictions the reports may have been filed.
After the filmed assault, Dickerson said she approached friends in the music industry asking them to confirm the existence of the “revenge porn” tape, but was rebuffed by those who were “terrified that Combs would retaliate against them and that they would lose future business and music opportunities.”
The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have been sexually abused unless they come forward publicly, as Dickerson has done.
In years after the alleged assaults, Combs, now 54, would found his own label, Bad Boys Records, helping to produce Mary J. Blige and Biggie Smalls on his way to becoming one of the most influential hip-hop producers and executives in the genre’s history.
The pair of lawsuits follow a separate set of explosive allegations made last week by Cassie Ventura, who said that Combs subjected her to a pattern of abuse during their yearslong relationship, which began in 2005, when she was 19 and he was 37.
Among the allegations, Ventura said Combs plied her with drugs, subjected her to “savage” beatings, and forced her to have sex with male prostitutes while he masturbated and filmed them. When she tried to end the relationship in 2018, Combs raped her, she alleged.
The lawsuit was settled one day after it was filed for an undisclosed sum.
In a statement shared by her lawyers, Ventura said she wanted to resolve this matter “on terms that I have some level of control.”
Combs said: “We have decided to resolve this matter amicably. I wish Cassie and her family all the best. Love.”
Jamie Foxx has been accused of sexual assault and battery by a young woman who claims the singer and actor groped her at a New York restaurant in 2015.
The complaint was filed in New York court on Wednesday (Nov. 22) by attorney Craig Phemister. In it, the Jane Doe plaintiff claims she met an allegedly intoxicated Foxx at the Catch NYC restaurant rooftop in August 2015 and, along with a friend, asked if he would take photos with them.
The woman claims that after taking photos with Foxx, he made several flirtatious comments before subsequently pulling her to a “secluded area.” There, she claims he rubbed her breasts before sliding his hands into her pants and placing “his fingers on and in” her vagina and anus despite her attempts to step away from him. She says he only stopped after her friend came looking for her, at which point she claims he walked away.
The woman, who says she was 18 at the time, claims that in the aftermath of the alleged assault, she “was injured; was rendered sick, sore, lame and disabled; was caused to undergo medical treatment and advice; was unable to pursue her usual and regular activities; was caused to undergo great conscious pain and suffering, continues to undergo such, and will permanently be affected by the injuries and emotional distress she incurred as a result of the sexual assault, abuse, assault and battery.”
Also named in the lawsuit are Catch Hospitality Group, which owns the New York restaurant, as well as its co-founder, Mark Birnbaum, whom the woman claims was drinking with Foxx at his table that night. She alleges that Birnbaum, the hospitality group and associated companies “were negligent in the hiring, training, lack of supervision, management, control and retention of their employees,” including several (listed as John/Jane Does 1-10) whom she says were working at the restaurant that night.
The lawsuit additionally claims that Foxx’s co-defendants “had knowledge of [his] propensities for aggressive behavior towards females, the potential for unwanted sexual touching and his bad disposition when consuming excessive alcohol.” The suit adds that restaurant staff were not properly trained “how to observe when a patron such as Foxx has consumed an excessive amount of alcohol and should not be served any more, and in otherwise ensuring the safety of their patrons from unwanted and abusive sexual touching.” It also claims the restaurant did not provide adequate security to protect its guests, thereby making the alleged assault possible.
All defendants are additionally accused of violating New York City’s Gender-Motivated Violence Act — Foxx for the alleged assault and Birnbaum and the companies for allegedly enabling it.
The woman is seeking damages for pain and suffering and economic loss as well as punitive damages.
Representatives for Foxx, Birnbaum and Catch Hospitality Group did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
The case against Foxx is just the latest in a string of sexual misconduct lawsuits filed over the last month against men in the music industry, including industry executives like L.A. Reid and Jimmy Iovine and superstar artists including Axl Rose and Sean “Diddy” Combs (who settled the lawsuit brought by his accuser, former girlfriend and R&B singer Cassie, one day after it was filed). The spike in cases is due to the looming expiration at midnight Thursday (Nov. 23) of New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which created a one-year window for alleged survivors to take legal action over years-old accusations that would typically be barred under the statute of limitations.
