State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 64
One of Young Thug’s co-defendants is asking the Georgia Supreme Court to force the judge overseeing the rapper’s high-profile gang trial to recuse himself, arguing that a secret meeting with prosecutors and a witness was a serious violation of judicial ethics.
Judge Ural Glanville himself has already repeatedly refused requests from Thug’s attorney Brian Steel and other defense lawyers that he step aside over allegations about the so-called ex parte meeting – and instead ordered Steel jailed after he refused to divulge how he learned of it.
So on Thursday, lawyers for fellow rapper and co-defendant Yak Gotti (Deamonte Kendrick) filed an emergency petition asking the state’s high court to force Glanville to do so.
Trending on Billboard
“Glanville’s actions offend public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary,” wrote Yak Gotti’s attorney Doug Weinstein. “An appearance of impropriety and bias hangs over the present trial due to Glanville’s failure to follow the law.”
If the petition is granted, it would be the second time Georgia’s Supreme Court has jumped into the YSL trial. Last week, the high court hit pause on Steel’s jail sentence and agreed to review the judge’s decision to hold the lawyer in contempt.
Thug (Jeffery Williams) and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but rather a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Prosecutors claim the group committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade. After kicking off in January 2023, the trial is already the longest in Georgia state history and is expected to run until early next year.
In an extraordinary courtroom episode last week, Steel revealed that he had learned of an ex parte meeting between Glanville, prosecutors and a witness named Kenneth Copeland. Steel argued that such a meeting, without defense counsel present, was clear grounds for a mistrial. He claimed Glanville had helped prosecutors coerce the uncooperative Copeland into testifying with threats of extended jail time.
Copeland is a central witness for the entire racketeering case against Thug and the other alleged YSL members, but he’s particularly important for the case against Yak Gotti. His testimony pertains to the 2015 murder of Donovan “Nut” Thomas Jr., which Gotti and fellow defendant Shannon Stillwell are directly charged with committing.
Rather than address Steel’s complaints, Glanville instead demanded to know how he had learned of the meeting, suggesting that it had been the result of an illegal leak. The judge eventually held Steel in contempt of court when the lawyer refused to name names, sentencing him to serve 20 days in county jail as punishment.
Earlier this week, Steel and other defense attorneys later demanded that the judge step aside from the case over the incident. In his motion, Thug’s attorney argued that Glanville had “forfeited [his] role as an impartial judge and has become a member of the prosecution team.” But the judge quickly denied the request, saying it was based on “bare assertions and legal conclusions.”
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Yak Gotti’s attorney Weinstein echoed Steel’s arguments. He said the allegations against the judge “casts a pall” over the ongoing case and represents “obstruction of defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.”
“Defense counsel should have been afforded an opportunity to attend any hearing where a sworn witness in a critical stage of the trial is being coerced to testify,” Weinstein wrote. “The only logical conclusion for the secret nature of the proceeding was to give Glanville in conjunction with the State the unfettered ability to harass and intimidate the sworn witness into testifying.”
TikTok disclosed a letter Thursday that accused the Biden administration of engaging in “political demagoguery” during high-stakes negotiations between the government and the company as it sought to relieve concerns about its presence in the U.S.
The letter — sent to David Newman, a top official in the Justice Department’s national security division, before President Biden signed the potential TikTok ban into law — was submitted in federal court along with a legal brief supporting the company’s lawsuit against measure. TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company ByteDance is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, which is expected to be one of the biggest legal battles in tech and internet history.
The internal documents provide details about negotiations between TikTok and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a secretive inter-agency panel that investigates corporate deals over national security concerns, between January 2021 and August 2022.
Trending on Billboard
TikTok has said those talks ultimately resulted in a 90-page draft security agreement that would have required the company to implement more robust safeguards around U.S. user data. It would have also required TikTok to put in a “kill switch” that would have allowed CFIUS to suspend the platform if it was found to be non-compliant with the agreement.
CFIUS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Justice Department said it is looking forward to defending the recently enacted legislation, which it says addresses “critical national security concerns in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment and other constitutional limitations.”
“Alongside others in our intelligence community and in Congress, the Justice Department has consistently warned about the threat of autocratic nations that can weaponize technology — such as the apps and software that run on our phones – to use against us,” the statement said. “This threat is compounded when those autocratic nations require companies under their control to turn over sensitive data to the government in secret.”
The letter sent to Newman details additional meetings between TikTok and government officials since then, including a March 2023 call the company said was arranged by Paul Rosen, the U.S. Treasury’s undersecretary for investment security.
According to TikTok, Rosen told the company that “senior government officials” deemed the draft agreement to be insufficient to address the government’s national security concerns. Rosen also said a solution would have to involve a divestment by ByteDance and the migration of the social platform’s source code, or its fundamental programming, out of China.
TikTok’s lawsuit has painted divestment as a technological impossibility since the law requires all of TikTok’s millions of lines of code to be wrested from ByteDance so that there would be no “operational relationship” between the Chinese company and the new U.S. app.
After the Wall Street Journal reported in March 2023 that CFIUS had threatened ByteDance to divest TikTok or face a ban, TikTok’s attorneys held another call with senior staff from the Justice and Treasury departments where they said leaks to the media by government officials were “problematic and damaging.”
That call was followed by an in-person meeting in May 2023 between TikTok’s attorneys, technical experts and senior staff at the Treasury Department focused on data safety measures and TikTok’s source code, the company’s attorneys said. The last meeting with CFIUS occurred in September 2023.
In the letter to Newman, TikTok’s attorneys say CFIUS provides a constructive way to address the government’s concern. However, they added, the agency can only serve this purpose when the law – which imposes confidentiality – and regulations “are followed and both sides are engaged in good-faith discussions, as opposed to political subterfuge, where CFIUS negotiations are misappropriated for legislative purposes.”
The legal brief also shared details of, but does not include, a one-page document the Justice Department allegedly provided to members of Congress in March, a month before they passed the federal bill that would require the platform to be sold to an approved buyer or face a ban.
TikTok’s attorneys said the document asserted TikTok collects sensitive data without alleging the Chinese government has ever obtained such data. According to the company, the document also alleged that TikTok’s algorithm creates the potential for China to influence content on the platform without alleging the country has ever done so.
A federal judge says Megan Thee Stallion didn’t copy her chart-topping “Savage” from an earlier song, ruling there’s no evidence the superstar has ever even heard the little-known instrumental track.
In a decision issued Tuesday (June 18), Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by producer James A. Greene, who claimed that Megan’s mega-hit infringed the copyrights to his own song “It’s About To Be On.”
Green claimed he had “no doubt” that “Savage” infringed his rights, but Judge Failla ruled that the two songs were clearly different.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiff’s work is an instrumental piece, with little variety in sounds and instruments used throughout,” the judge wrote. “By contrast, ‘Savage’ is a pop song, featuring lyrics as well as a more upbeat tempo. Plaintiff’s work is qualitatively different from ‘Savage,’ and any similarities implicate common, non-copyrightable elements of any song.”
The judge also ruled that the case was flawed for a simpler reason: That it was unlikely Megan and her co-writers had “access” to his song to copy it — a key element in any copyright lawsuit. Green had argued that he passed along CDs in the early 2000s to someone who might have later given them to “Savage” producer J. White Did It.
But Judge Failla said that wasn’t enough: “Plaintiff is unable to allege any chain of events that creates anything more than the ‘bare possibility’ that defendants gained access to plaintiff’s work.”
The judge also ruled that Green’s song was not popular enough that Megan might have heard it on her own: “At best, plaintiff alleges that he undertook his own efforts to distribute the work throughout the music industry to A&R’s, management teams, etc.,” Judge Failla wrote. “Yet such efforts alone fall short of widespread distribution.”
Greene sued Megan (Megan Pete), J. White (Anthony White) and Warner Music Group last year, claiming “Savage” had borrowed material from his “It’s About To Be On,” a three-minute instrumental track he says he released in 1999. He claimed that the two songs shared the same drum pattern and piano note pattern as well as similar siren sounds.
But in Thursday’s ruling, Judge Failla said each of those elements was different in Megan’s song, including the siren sounds.
“In [Green’s song], the siren sound is an atonal chord that appears to be created using a synthesizer,” the judge said. “By contrast, in ‘Savage,’ the alleged siren sound is not a siren at all, but rather is a distorted vocal sample. Put simply, no reasonable listener would discern any similarity.”
Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Thursday (June 20).
Two Madonna fans have now dropped their lawsuit complaining about delayed starts to her concerts, but the star’s lawyers are emphatic that the move was “not the result of any settlement” and are warning they might even seek penalties over the “frivolous” case.
In a motion filed in federal court Wednesday (June 19), lawyers for the aggrieved fans said they would permanently drop the case, in which they accused Madonna and Live Nation of breaking laws by making fans wait for hours at December concerts in Brooklyn on her Celebration Tour.
But later that same day, Madonna and Live Nation’s lawyers fired off a letter to the judge advising him that the move to drop the case had been made “unilaterally” by the other side — and that they had not reached any kind of agreement to end a case they say should never have been filed.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendants believe that this action was a frivolous strike suit designed to force them to incur legal expenses,” the star’s lawyers write. “Plaintiffs have now abandoned this lawsuit when it became clear that this approach would not result in a settlement payment and that they would need to oppose defendants’ motion.”
The motion to drop the case said that each side would “bear its own fees and costs,” but Madonna’s lawyers said in their letter that they had never agreed to that — and that they might still demand that the plaintiffs repay the money they were forced to spend litigating the short-lived lawsuit.
“Given the legal expenses that defendants were forced to incur to defend this action … defendants reserve the right to move for sanctions, attorneys’ fees, and costs,” lawyers for Madonna and Live Nation write.
An attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Fellows and Jason Alvarez, did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (June 20).
Madonna and Live Nation were first sued in January over the Brooklyn shows — a case that made headlines because it claimed the fans “had to get up early to go to work” the next day. She was later hit with a similar case in Washington, D.C., that claimed fans had waited in an “uncomfortably hot” arena and that she had lip-synched portions of the show. A third case, filed last month, echoed those claims but also alleged that Madonna’s show in Los Angeles had been unexpectedly “pornographic.”
All three cases have been filed as class actions, seeking to represent potentially thousands of other fans who also endured the alleged delays. By starting the concerts later than expected, the cases claim Madonna and Live Nation breached their contracts with fans and violated state consumer protection laws.
Madonna’s attorneys have strongly rejected those accusations. In a request to dismiss the New York case earlier this year, her lawyers argued that simply needing to wake up early was not the kind of “cognizable injury” that can form the basis for a lawsuit. And they say that anyone buying a concert ticket is well aware that a show likely won’t start at the exact time printed on the ticket.
“No reasonable concertgoer — and certainly no Madonna fan — would expect the headline act at a major arena concert to take the stage at the ticketed event time,” her legal team wrote in April.
While Wednesday’s dismissal means that the New York case is now closed, the D.C. and Los Angeles lawsuits remain pending.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Wu-Tang Clan’s one-of-a-kind album is at the center of a lawsuit against Martin Shkreli; Justin Timberlake faces a drunk driving charge; Young Thug’s lawyer avoids jail and demands that a judge recuse himself; Drake is sued by Members Only for trademark infringement; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Once Upon A Time In Court
When the Wu-Tang Clan auctioned off their one-of-a-kind album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin to Martin Shkreli in 2015, the deal was famous for its kooky restrictions. A rumor about a clause allowing Bill Murray to steal the CD in a heist turned out to be fictional, but the deal really did include a requirement that the music could not be released to the general public until 2103. Needless to say, a lot has changed since then. Shkreli soon became the hated “Pharma Bro” who spiked the price of crucial AIDS medications; he then forfeited the album to federal prosecutors after he was convicted on securities fraud charges. Years later, the government then re-sold Shaolin to a group called PleasrDAO. But those weird contractual restrictions came back into the picture twice this past week — first when Pleasr sued Shkreli for threatening to leak the album online, and again when Pleasr itself said it would be offering fans the chance to buy a snippet of the mysterious album for just $1. Go read our full story on the lawsuit against Shkreli, which Billboard will be monitoring closely as it moves forward in court. And then go read our deep-dive into how a famously restricted album is being “offered to the public” decades earlier than it was supposed to be.
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
TIMBERLAKE ARREST – Justin Timberlake was arrested in the Hamptons on suspicion of driving while intoxicated after a police officer pulled him over for running a stop sign and failing to stay in his lane. According to court records, Timberlake told police he “had one martini and I followed my friends home,” but his “eyes were bloodshot and glassy” and the officer smelled “a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage” before he failed a field sobriety test.NO JAIL FOR THUG’S LAWYER – Young Thug’s attorney in his Atlanta gang trial isn’t going to jail — at least not for now. Days after Judge Ural Glanville held Brian Steel in contempt over a bizarre courtroom episode centered on claims of a secret meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key witness, Georgia’s Supreme Court hit pause on Steel’s sentence while it reviews the judge’s decision. RECUSAL REFUSAL – Meanwhile, Steel demanded that Glanville recuse himself from the case, arguing that the secret meeting was an “unforgiveable” error and that the judge had “forfeited its role as an impartial judge and has become a member of the prosecution team.” The judge quickly denied the motion, saying Steel had provided only “bare assertions and legal conclusions.” MEMBERS ONLY v. DRAKE – Drake’s production company was hit with a lawsuit from the apparel brand Members Only, which claims that he’s been selling tour merch that infringed the company’s trademarks. The superstar’s concert t-shirts are a reference to a track of the same name on his 2023 album For All the Dogs, but the lawsuit says that’s no excuse. CARTEL CONCERTS? Angel Del Villar, the CEO of Los Angeles-based Del Records, asked a federal judge to dismiss criminal charges accusing him of doing business with a concert promoter linked to Mexican drug cartels. Del Villar’s lawyers say the indictment, handed down in 2022, is unfairly vague and the sign of an eventual “sucker punch” by prosecutors. LIL UZI SUED OVER UNPAID BILLS – Lil Uzi Vert was sued by a touring production company called M99 Studios that claims the rapper owes more than $500,000 in unpaid bills for work done at last year’s Rolling Loud, Roots Picnic and other events. Among other things, the lawsuit claims the bills involve satisfying the rapper’s “unrealistic production requests,” including finding and hiring more than two dozen adult dancers to appear onstage at a concert last year. DIVORCE DRAMA – Billy Ray Cyrus filed an emergency motion in Tennessee court amid his ongoing divorce from the singer Firerose, accusing her of nearly $100,000 in unauthorized credit card charges and seeking a temporary restraining order to stop her.
The Atlanta judge overseeing Young Thug’s gang trial is refusing to recuse himself from the case and declare a mistrial, denying a motion filed by the rapper’s lawyers over revelations of an allegedly “illegal” secret meeting with prosecutors and a star witness.
At a hearing in Fulton County Court on Tuesday, Judge Ural Glanville rejected arguments from Thug’s attorney Brian Steel that the judge had “forfeited its role as an impartial judge and has become a member of the prosecution team.” The ruling came just a day after Steel filed his motion, in which he argued that the secret meeting with prosecutors had been an “unforgivable” error.
“The court has become a member of the prosecution team in an effort to thwart Mr. Williams’ Constitutional right to a fair trial,” Steel wrote in the motion, referring to Thug by his real name Jeffery Williams. “This court must be recused, the court and the prosecution have violated Mr. Williams’ rights and the Indictment must be dismissed after a mistrial is declared.”
Trending on Billboard
But in Tuesday’s ruling from the bench, Glanville said that Steel’s allegations were based merely on “bare assertions and legal conclusions which aren’t sufficient for the court to grant your motion.” The judge also refused to pause the trial or allow an immediate appeal the ruling to a higher court.
Thug and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” group was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but rather a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Prosecutors claim the group committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade. After kicking off in January 2023, the trial is already the longest in Georgia state history and is expected to run until early next year.
In an extraordinary courtroom episode last week, Steel revealed that he had learned of a secret “ex parte” meeting that morning between Glanville, prosecutors and a witness named Kenneth Copeland. Steel argued that such a meeting, without defense counsel present, was clear grounds for a mistrial. He claimed Glanville had helped prosecutors coerce the uncooperative Copeland into testifying with threats of extended jail time.
Rather than address Steel’s complaints, Glanville instead repeatedly demanded that he divulge who had informed him about a private meeting in his chambers, suggesting the leak was illegal: “If you don’t tell me how you got this information, you and I are going to have problems.” After Steel refused to do so, the judge eventually held him in contempt and sentenced him to 20 days in jail. The Georgia Supreme Court later halted the sentence while it reviews Glanville’s decision.
In Monday’s motion demanding Glanville’s recusal, Steel lambasted the judge over the secret meeting, repeatedly referring to it as a “star chamber” – a reference to an ancient English judicial practice characterized by secrecy and a lack of due process. He said the incident illustrated that Glanville and the prosecutors are “teaming up to gain an unlawful advantage over Mr. Williams.”
“Mr. Williams’ trial is constitutionally fractured, unfair and lacks all constitutional, statutory and ethical safeguards and protections of due process of law,” Steel wrote. “No intellectually honest person could believe that coercing witness Copeland to testify in a ‘star chamber’ setting meets Constitutional muster.”
In the filings, Steel laid out in detail what he believes occurred during the ex parte meeting.
After Copeland had reneged on a plan to testify in exchange for immunity, Steel claimed prosecutors and Glanville had warned the witness that if he did not testify, he could be held in custody until the entire YSL case is over – a process that’s expected to take many years. Steel claims that Glanville gave Copeland a written copy on the rules of perjury, which Steel argued was “no subtle gesture and one that helped the prosecution team to obtain their mission for Mr. Copeland to change his mind and testify.”
“This court was a participant and was present during these admonitions/threats to Mr. Copeland,” Steel writes. “This is witness intimidation, coercion and the court has become a member of the prosecution team in assisting the prosecution to induce a material witness to testify.”
In addition to the substance of the meeting, Steel took particular aim at the secrecy of it – saying that Glanville and the prosecutors not only held the meeting without notice, but “never intended” to reveal it to defense attorneys until Steel himself learned of it through other means. He also argued that Glanville had “obstructed justice” by refusing to release a transcript, and even suggests that court officers “may have been instructed to turn off their body cameras.”
During Tuesday’s hearing, after Glanville denied the motion to recuse, Steel pleaded in vain with him to reconsider stepping aside. The attorney warned that when he cross-examined Copeland on the witness stand, he would need to ask him about the ex parte meeting with the judge.
“I’m going to ask him how much pressure, if any, the court put on him, and you’re going to be the one instructing the jury,” Steel said to Glanville. “And I just can’t imagine how that’s fair to Mr. Williams.”
Justin Timberlake was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated in Sag Harbor, New York on Monday night (June 17). According to CNN, a spokesperson for the Sag Harbor Police Department confirmed that Timberlake, 43, remained in custody as of Tuesday morning (June 18) while a rep for the Sag Harbor Justice Court told the […]
Billy Ray Cyrus‘ divorce from his wife of seven months, singer Firerose, took an unexpected turn last week when the 62-year-old “Achy Breaky Heart” singer filed an emergency motion in Tennessee court on Thursday (June 13) seeking a temporary restraining order, according to People magazine.
Cyrus, 62, filed for divorce from the Hannah Montana alum and 37-year-old Australian singer born Johanna Rose Hodges in Nashville on May 22 citing “irreconcilable differences” and “inappropriate marital conduct,” in addition to seeking an annulment on fraud grounds.
Now, according to papers reportedly obtained by People, weeks after filing for divorce Cyrus’ emergency motion is meant to keep his estranged wife from any “unauthorized” use of his personal and business credit cards and accounts. In the docs, Cyrus reportedly alleges that in recent weeks Firerose has spent $96,986 on 37 unauthorized charges on his business account, including $70,665 in payments to her attorneys.
Trending on Billboard
At press time a spokespeople for Cyrus and Firerose had no comment when asked for additional information on the restraining order.
“As a result of these fraudulent charges… I am concerned that Ms. Hodges is in possession of other information that she may use to make fraudulent, unauthorized charges to my business and personal credit cards and accounts,” Cyrus wrote in an affidavit. The latest filing claims that the unauthorized charges began on May 23, the day Cyrus filed for divorce after almost seven months of marriage.
People reported that Firerose’s response to the emergency motion claimed there was “no emergency,” saying that she has had access to Cyrus’ American Express card since June 2022; the couple first began dating in 2022 after years of friendship and got engage later that year before marrying in October 2023. “To claim Wife has made 37 unauthorized charges is untrue,” Firerose’s attorneys wrote in the response filing according to a copy obtained by People. “Throughout the divorce proceedings, the parties are to live as per the status quo during the marriage. Wife was simply living as she has since October 10, 2023, and Husband has no right to cut her off.”
Additionally, Firerose’s filing reportedly claimed that after the couple’s 2023 wedding she continued to use his cards with Cyrus’ full permission and that the couple would “routinely” review her expenses on that card.
In contrast, according to People, Cyrus’ motion claims that he and Firerose do not have any joint accounts, credit cards or real estate and that neither was ever an authorized user or signer on one another’s accounts. Cyrus’ motion also claims that Firerose owns real estate in L.A. worth more than seven figures and that she has more than $500K in “liquid and investment assets at her disposal.”
After filing for divorce from his third wife — Cyrus was married to Cindy Smith from 1986-1991 and to Tish Cyrus from 1993-2002 — Cyrus reportedly reached an agreement in court that called for Firerose to move out of his home immediately with the provision that he would provide her with financial support for 90 days or until the dissolution of their marriage, or whichever comes first.
Just days after a company established to release solo music by band members of K-pop group EXO declared “war” against the stars’ longtime label and management agency SM Entertainment over a contract dispute, the K-pop giant has filed a lawsuit against the trio. As reported by the Korea JoongAng Daily, SM filed a civil suit […]
Lil Uzi Vert is facing a lawsuit that claims they owe a music touring company more than $500,000 in unpaid bills, including for procuring more than two dozen adult dancers that the rapper demanded appear on stage at last year’s Rolling Loud festival in Miami.
In a complaint filed Thursday (June 13) in Georgia federal court, attorneys for M99 Studios say the company successfully worked with Lil Uzi Vert (Symere Bysil Woods) for years, often serving as a “fixer for all things” and keeping tours running despite “unrealistic” requests.
But M99 claims that the rapper and their company (Uzivert LLC) have failed to pay their bills for four concerts last year, including Rolling Loud in Miami and Roots Picnic in Lil Uzi’s native Philadelphia. “Despite its numerous requests for payment of the outstanding invoices, at no point have Uzivert and/or Artist compensated M99 for the services it provided,” the complaint reads.
Trending on Billboard
The costs incurred by M99 covered “unrealistic production requests just hours before the scheduled performances,” the company’s lawyers claim. That included finding “a bounce house, wooded crosses, and mannequins” for one show, and hiring 30 adult dancers to appear at Rolling Loud.
“M99 managed to fulfill this request, along with countless other last-minute demands all at significant time, effort and expense,” the company says.
For years, the lawsuit claims that Lil Uzi Vert “relied heavily on M99” for all “creative ideas, production, and staffing for all tours, shows and performances.” The lawsuit says the rapper would often fall behind on billing, and that M99 would often have to cover up for their financial shortcomings.
“While Artist’s account would work from time-to-time, his credit card would frequently be declined while on tour, making it impossible for M99 to ensure the safety and well-being of the crew without covering the expenses itself,” the company wrote.
M99 says it finally cut ties after an Australian tour, saying the company “decided not to bill for the Australian services in hopes of parting ways amicably.” But the earlier debts over the four American concerts were never paid, the lawsuit claims, despite repeated promises from the rapper’s longtime manager, Amina Diop.
“M99 respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Uzivert and/or Artist in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $533,499,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
A rep for Lil Uzi Vert did not immediately return a request for comment from Billboard.
