Legal News

Record executive Kevin Liles is asking a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault in the early 2000s, arguing there’s zero evidence for the “salacious” allegations because they are “entirely false.”
In a letter to the judge filed Tuesday, attorneys for the 300 Entertainment founder say they’re planning to file a motion to dismiss the case, which alleges that Liles harassed and sexually assaulted an unnamed female employee while serving as the president of Def Jam Records in 2002.

“During his storied career, Mr. Liles has never faced a single accusation of sexual impropriety,” his attorneys write. “That is, until plaintiff filed this patently false and untimely lawsuit some twenty-three years after the alleged conduct purportedly occurred.”

Trending on Billboard

Liles’ lawyers say the Jane Doe’s lawsuit contains only generic accusations and almost no specific details to support her allegations – an omission that they say is “not surprising as the claims are entirely false.”

“Beyond these threadbare assertions, spanning only three paragraphs, plaintiff offers zero factual bases for her salacious allegations,” his attorneys say “This court need not credit Plaintiff’s threadbare recitals and ‘defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me’ accusations.”

Liles served as president of Universal Music Group’s Def Jam Recordings and executive vice president of the Island Def Jam Music Group from 1999 to 2004. After a stint at Warner Music Group, he co-founded 300 Entertainment in 2012 with Lyor Cohen, Roger Gold and Todd Moscowitz. The label, which quickly gained recognition for developing hip-hop superstars like Megan Thee Stallion, Migos and Young Thug, was acquired by Warner in 2021 for $400 million. In September, Liles announced he would step down from his role as chairman and CEO.

The case against Liles was filed in February by a woman who says she was hired as an executive assistant at UMG in 1999. She claims that Liles began sexually harassing her shortly after she was hired, which then “escalated” into groping. In an alleged 2002 incident, Doe says he assaulted her after she rebuffed his advances.

“Kevin Liles proceeded to physically force himself on top of [Jane Doe] where he began to sexually assault and ultimately rape her despite her continued protests,” her attorneys wrote in their complaint.

But in Tuesday’s response, Lile’s attorneys say those allegations are woefully insufficient, arguing they lack the kind of basic facts required to bring legal allegations in court. They say Doe “does little more than simply assert in conclusory form that Mr. Liles assaulted her.”

“Plaintiff offers no detail whatsoever regarding the nature of the purported assault she suffered,” they write. “She fails … to explain when these purported acts occurred, where in UMG’s offices they occurred, identify a single person she reported this information to, or who was present.”

As for the rape allegation, Liles’ attorneys say the case is similarly lacking: “Like the other specific details she fails to provide, plaintiff does not offer a specific time, how she came to be in contact with Mr. Liles who she neither reported to nor worked for, or anything other than the conclusory assertion that she suffered an assault.”

Beyond the alleged deficiencies in the case, attorneys for Liles say the case should also be dismissed for a simpler reason: That it was filed well beyond the statute of limitations. Doe’s attorneys sued under a New York state law that created a one-year window to file such cases, but did so after the deadline to bring them: “Plaintiff failed to assert any claim against Mr. Liles whatsoever during that one-year window, and it has now closed.”

UMG, which was named as a co-defendant in the case, also filed a letter Tuesday saying it would seek to dismiss the case. The music giant’s attorneys have similar protests about time limits, but also argue more broadly that they cannot be sued over alleged actions by one of its executives.

“UMGR cannot be held liable for the alleged actions of Mr. Liles,” the company’s attorneys write, referring to UMG Recordings. “Assuming he had engaged in the conduct alleged, UMGR is a music company and the alleged conduct was indisputably not in furtherance of any business of UMGR.”

Four years after DMX’s tragic 2021 death, a New York judge has ruled that his ex-wife can’t claim a 50 percent stake in the rapper’s music catalog and other intellectual property (IP) rights.
Tashera Simmons, who was married to the legendary rapper (Earl Simmons) for 16 years, sued his estate last year, claiming she was the rightful owner of half of his copyrights, trademarks and likeness rights. But in a ruling Monday (April 7), a New York judge said otherwise.

“The estate is the sole owner of all intellectual property rights [that] Earl Simmons acquired during his marriage to plaintiff, as well as any and all other trademarks and intellectual property rights that belonged to Earl Simmons at the time of his death,” Judge David F. Everett wrote.

Trending on Billboard

The dispute centers on the couple’s 2016 divorce agreement, which mentioned “intellectual property” but didn’t expressly state that Tashera was a co-owner of the copyrights and trademarks. Before his death, DMX insisted the deal only granted her royalty payments — an argument his estate has maintained in the years since his death.

In Monday’s decision, Judge Everett not only ruled that the divorce settlement “does not confer ownership,” but that Tashera had essentially waived the right to make that claim. The judge cited the fact that she had raised the issue in previous litigation and had then signed a settlement that made no mention of sharing ownership.

“Under the circumstances of this case, the court will not, in effect, reopen those proceedings to reinterpret the parties’ 2016 settlement agreement, particularly where the party best positioned to contest a contrary interpretation is now deceased,” the judge wrote.

DMX, one of the most influential stars in hip-hop history, was married to Tashera through his turn-of-the-century heyday, as he released Billboard Hot 100 hits like “Ruff Ryders’ Anthem,” “Party Up (Up In Here)” and “What These Bitches Want.” The pair, who share four children, filed for divorce in 2013 and finalized the split in 2016. After years of health issues, DMX died in April 2021 following a drug overdose and subsequent heart attack.

Tashera sued last year, claiming that the estate’s administrators (DMX’s ex-fiancée Desiree Lindstrom and his daughter by another woman, Sasha Simmons) were improperly disputing her ownership stake. She cited a handwritten excerpt from the divorce settlement, which said she would get half of IP rights, followed by: “which shall include, but not be limited to, royalties.”

But in Monday’s decision, Judge Everett said that language “does not unequivocally assign ownership of decedent’s copyrighted works or trademark and, indeed, makes no mention of ownership or title to such property.”

“Instead, plaintiff proffers an interpretation of the phrase ‘intellectual property rights’ to include ownership, but had that phrase meant ownership, then there would be no need to define those rights further in the subsequent clause, all tellingly limited to various categories of royalty payments.”

The judge did side with Tashera on one smaller issue by refusing to dismiss her accusations that DMX had breached the divorce agreement by failing to pay $214,000 in child support. That issue is factually disputed by both sides, the judge said, meaning dismissing it would be “premature.”

Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Wednesday (April 9).

Sean “Diddy” Combs and federal prosecutors are locked in a pre-trial battle over a crucial question: Whether jurors can hear testimony from numerous other accusers beyond the four women at the core of the government’s case.
In dueling court filings Monday, attorneys for the two sides exchanged heated arguments over the prosecution’s plan to call witnesses that it identifies as “non-statutory victims” – women who say they were sexually assaulted by Combs but whose claims don’t form the basis for the actual charges.

Diddy’s lawyers say the feds are trying to “pollute the trial with decades of dirt” by adding last-minute “incendiary” claims to paint him as a “bad guy”; prosecutors say Combs is “desperately” trying to keep relevant testimony about his other intent and knowledge “hidden from the jury.”

Trending on Billboard

“That testimony powerfully establishes that the defendant made no mistake when he coerced other victims into unwanted sex,” the government wrote in its filing Monday. “It proves that the defendant intended to take the sexual gratification he wanted, regardless of consent.”

Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation that aimed to “fulfill his sexual desires.” The case centers on elaborate “freak off” parties in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex, as well as on alleged acts of violence to keep victims silent.

A trial is currently set to start on May 5. If convicted on all of the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, Combs faces a potential life prison sentence.

The actual criminal counts against Diddy center on four alleged victims, identified in court documents as Victim-1, Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4. While Victim-1 is known to be Combs’ ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, the identities of the others are unknown and prosecutors are seeking to keep it that way.

On Monday, attorneys for Combs lodged a scathing filing claiming the government had “suddenly” moved to add new accusations from other alleged victims beyond those four women. They claimed the “incendiary” new claims of sexual assault were “substantially more serious” than the actual sex trafficking and racketeering allegations – and would “make it impossible for Mr. Combs to receive a fair trial.”

“The government should not be permitted to pollute the trial with decades of dirt and invite a conviction based on propensity evidence with no proper purpose by painting Mr. Combs as a bad guy who must have committed the charged crimes,” his lawyers wrote.

Diddy’s lawyers say such testimony would not only “double the length of a trial,” but is improper “character evidence” – material not directly linked to the alleged wrongdoing that’s designed to convince jurors that a defendant could have committed the crime.

“This tactic cannot be allowed to succeed,” Combs’ lawyers wrote in their filing. “If the government’s evidence were allowed, it would mark one of the worst abuses of the character evidence rule in the history of American law.”

Later on Monday, prosecutors fired back to defend their plan, arguing that Combs himself had opened the door to such testimony by planning to argue that the alleged victims had consensually partaken in the “freak offs” and other sexual activity. They say testimony about other numerous other assaults will clearly disprove such a defense strategy.

“When the defendant inevitably argues at trial that he had no clue these four women did not want the sexual experiences that he demanded, the government should be able to point out that someone as practiced as he is in sexual assault surely recognized the signs of non-consent,” prosecutors wrote. “And when the defendant claims that he only ever intended to have consensual, loving sexual experiences with the [charged] victims, the government should be able to point out his repeated intent to sexually gratify himself with unwilling participants.”

Neither side disclosed in court filings who the new alleged victims are, or how many of them the government plans to call as witnesses. But Combs’ lawyers said that “all but one of the alleged incidents happened over twenty years ago” and that the new accusations “implicate dozens of unidentified witnesses and alleged co-conspirators around the world.”