Legal News
Page: 69
After a whirlwind week of litigation, Adidas has abruptly dropped a federal court case aimed at freezing $75 million held by Kanye West’s Yeezy brand, saying it will instead pursue the money solely through private arbitration.
In a legal filing Tuesday evening, attorneys for Adidas and Yeezy said they had reached an agreement that would see the sneaker giant voluntarily dismiss the case. It came just hours after a federal judge refused to grant Adidas an emergency order re-freezing the $75 million held by Yeezy.
But the dismissal is hardly the end of the dispute. Adidas and Yeezy will continue battle it out in a private arbitration case, in which Adidas will likely argue that that West’s “offensive conduct” caused the breakdown of their long-standing partnership.
Adidas, which operated a lucrative sneaker collaboration with West for nearly a decade, was one of many companies to terminate its relationship with the embattled rapper (sometimes known as Ye) last fall in the wake of his antisemitic statements and other erratic behavior.
It’s been a messy breakup for Adidas. The split contributed to a loss of $655 million in sales for the last three months of 2022, helping drive the company to a quarterly net loss of $540 million. Last month, CEO Bjorn Gulden said the company would begin selling its $1.3 billion worth of unsold Yeezys, but would “donate money to the organizations that help us and were harmed by what Ye said.”
Days after Adidas announced the split with West, newly-unsealed court records show that it demanded Yeezy return $75 million that had allegedly been deposited in its accounts. When Yeezy refused, Adidas secretly filed its case in federal court, seeking a so-called “attachment” order immediately freezing those funds. While the real issues will be decided via arbitration, Adidas wanted the court to use its power to ensure that the money did not disappear while those private proceedings play out.
Court records show that Judge Valerie E. Caproni quickly granted the asset freeze in November, doing so not only in secret, but also on an “ex parte” basis — meaning without giving West or Yeezy a chance to make counter-arguments. Adidas argued, and the judge agreed, that there was a serious risk that Yeezy would have moved the money if given advanced notice.
But last week, after Yeezy’s attorneys challenged the freeze order, the judge finally lifted it — ruling that Adidas had run afoul of procedural requirements for such asset attachments and had thus “deprived” Yeezy of a fair chance to fight back.
In the wake of that order, lawyers for Adidas scrambled to have it reimposed. They argued that Yeezy currently holds $75 million “to which it has no legal right,” and warned that a court order was needed to maintain the status quo.
“Yeezy is likely to comingle the funds with an unknown balance of funds in its possession at other financial institutions, such that it would be more difficult if not impracticable to audit those accounts and determine which monies are owned by Adidas,” lawyers for Adidas wrote. “In addition, Ye faces a clear risk of insolvency, giving rise to a risk of irreparable harm.”
But this time, Judge Caproni was unswayed. While she said that Adidas would likely win its arbitration case against Yeezy, the judge ruled that the sneaker company had not met the difficult legal requirements for a new temporary restraining order: “Adidas’s motion for a TRO is denied.”
While the ruling only denied the emergency motion, Adidas could have still won a more conventional order in the coming days reimposing an asset freeze on Yeezy. But hours after Judge Caproni’s ruling, Adidas moved to drop its federal case.
Looking ahead, it’s unclear how long the pending arbitration case will take to play out, or what exact issues are being disputed. But in court documents, Adidas has said that West’s “racist, antisemitic, and other offensive public statements and conduct” caused “considerable damage to its brand.”
“Adidas has multiple causes of action against Yeezy, resulting from Ye’s highly public and offensive conduct described above, which violated the terms of the Agreement and justified adidas’s termination of that contract,” the company wrote. Those broader causes of action, as well as the dispute over [issues], will be resolved through arbitration.”
Reps for both sides did not immediately return a request for comment.
A Manhattan federal judge has denied a request by Adidas for an emergency order re-freezing $75 million held by Kanye West’s Yeezy brand, rejecting the sneaker company’s concerns that the disputed money might disappear.
Days after Judge Valerie E. Caproni lifted a months-long freeze on Yeezy’s accounts, she refused on Tuesday (May 30) to impose a temporary restraining order that would have immediately locked up the money again. Adidas argued that it faced “irreparable harm” without such an order as Yeezy was nearing insolvency, but the judge was unswayed.
“It is hereby ordered that … Adidas’s motion for a TRO is denied,” Judge Caproni wrote in her order, which was obtained by Billboard.
While still a loss for Adidas, Tuesday’s ruling only denied the emergency motion; Adidas can still win a more conventional order in the coming days reimposing an asset freeze on Yeezy. Both sides are due to file briefs on that request by Thursday.
Neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
Adidas, which operated a lucrative sneaker partnership with West for nearly a decade, was one of many companies to terminate its relationship with the embattled rapper (sometimes known as Ye) last fall in the wake of his antisemitic statements and other erratic behavior.
Shortly after the split, Adidas secretly filed a case in federal court to freeze $75 million in Yeezy assets. Adidas believes West’s company is contractually required to return the funds and has filed a private arbitration case to recover them. The company sought the court order to ensure that the money was not moved while those proceedings play out.
Newly-unsealed court records show that Judge Caproni quickly granted the asset freeze in November. But last week, after Yeezy’s attorneys challenged the order, she lifted it — ruling that Adidas had run afoul of procedural requirements and “deprived” Yeezy of a fair chance to fight back.
Just hours after that decision was issued, lawyers for Adidas filed their emergency request to re-freeze the assets. They argued that Yeezy currently holds $75 million “to which it has no legal right,” and warned that a court order was needed to maintain the status quo.
“Yeezy is likely to comingle the funds with an unknown balance of funds in its possession at other financial institutions, such that it would be more difficult if not impracticable to audit those accounts and determine which monies are owned by Adidas,” lawyers for Adidas wrote. “In addition, Ye faces a clear risk of insolvency, giving rise to a risk of irreparable harm.”
Tuesday’s ruling rejecting that motion came after a live hearing in Judge Caproni’s courtroom. According to a report by Bloomberg, the judge said during the hearing that while Adidas would likely win its arbitration case against Yeezy, it had not met the difficult legal requirements for a temporary restraining order. Among other things, the judge reportedly said that Adidas had offered only “tabloid speculation” about Yeezy’s risk of insolvency.
The newly-revealed litigation with Yeezy is just one piece of a messy breakup for Adidas. The split contributed to a loss of $655 million in sales for the last three months of 2022, helping drive the company to a quarterly net loss of 513 million euros ($540 million). Last month, CEO Bjorn Gulden said the company would begin selling $1.3 billion worth of unsold Yeezys, but would “donate money to the organizations that help us and were harmed by what Ye said.”
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: A messy legal battle between Adidas and Kanye West spills into the open; a YouTuber who defamed Cardi B declares bankruptcy to avoid a $4 million judgment; prosecutors call for a harsh sentence against Tory Lanez over the Megan Thee Stallion shooting; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Adidas v. Kanye
Thanks to newly-unsealed court records, the messy legal fallout from Kanye West’s high-profile split with Adidas is now coming into view.
Federal court records obtained by Billboard last week show that Adidas launched private arbitration proceedings last fall, shortly after the company terminated its long-standing partnership with West and his Yeezy brand in the wake of the rapper’s antisemitic statements. As part of that case, the company secretly sought – and won – an “attachment” order from a federal judge, freezing $75 million in Adidas money that’s allegedly sitting in Yeezy bank accounts.
Secretly? Yes, this case is a treasure trove for legal procedure nerds. The case was not only filed under seal and kept that way for months, but also on a so-called ex parte basis — meaning the judge issued the freeze without giving West or Yeezy a chance to make counter-arguments, saying there was a risk the rapper would have moved the money if given advanced notice.
But now, the case is spilling into the open. In a ruling earlier this month that unsealed the record, the judge cited the fact that Kanye himself had once mentioned the litigation on social media. And in a ruling Friday, that same judge overturned the ex parte freeze entirely, saying Adidas had failed to meet procedural requirements and had “deprived” Yeezy of a fair chance to fight back.
In the wake of that order, lawyers for Adidas are currently scrambling, seeking to have a new freeze imposed on the company. We’ll update you when we know more, so stay tuned.
Other top stories…
MORE KANYE PROBLEMS – Adidas isn’t the only former business partner in litigation with West. The Gap filed a case earlier in the week, alleging the rapper made unapproved changes to a Los Angeles retail location that resulted in an expensive lawsuit from the building’s owner.
B*TCH BETTER HAVE MY MONEY? – Eighteen months after Cardi B won a $4 million defamation verdict over salacious claims made by a YouTube host named Tasha K, the gossip blogger filed for bankruptcy, saying she has less than $60,000 in total assets to pay out.
FETTY WAP GETS SIX YEARS – The “Trap Queen” star was ordered to spend six years in federal prison, after pleading guilty last year to federal drug charges. His attorneys had asked for only a five-year sentence; prosecutors wanted as many as nine, citing music that they said had helped “glamorize the drug trade.”
GENIUS v. GOOGLE AT SCOTUS – The Department of Justice urged the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid a case alleging Google stole millions of song lyrics from the music database Genius, calling it a “poor vehicle” for a high court showdown.
TORY LANEZ SENTENCE LOOMS – Los Angeles prosecutors asked a judge to impose a harsh sentence against rapper Tory Lanez after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion, arguing he behaved with “indifference for human life” at a moment when Megan was “particularly vulnerable.”
GOOGLE FACES $32M PATENT VERDICT – A federal jury ordered the tech giant to pay Sonos the huge sum for infringing one of its smart speaker patents, awarding the smaller company $2.30 for each of the more than 14 million Google devices that were sold incorporating the patented technology.
MIGOS ALLEGED KILLER INDICTED – A Texas grand jury formally issued a murder indictment against Patrick Xavier Clark, the man who was arrested and charged last year in the slaying of Migos rapper TakeOff.
Bitch better have my money?
Spoiler alert: She doesn’t.
Eighteen months after Cardi B won a $4 million defamation verdict over salacious claims made by a YouTube host named Tasha K, the gossip blogger has filed for bankruptcy – and she says she has less than $60,000 in total assets to pay out.
In a petition filed Thursday in Florida federal court, Tasha K (real name Latasha Kebe) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, claiming she is unable to pay more than $3.4 million in liabilities that she owes to a number of creditors.
At the top of that list? Belcalis Marlenis Almanzar (Cardi’s legal name), to whom Tasha says she owes $3,380,642 for a “judgment.” That’s because Cardi won a verdict in January 2022 that Tasha had legally defamed the superstar by making false claims about drug use, STDs and prostitution in her YouTube videos.
Shortly after Cardi B won that verdict, she tweeted “imma come for everything” along with the acronym BBHMM – “bitch better have my money.” But Thursday’s petition makes clear that the star is unlikely to see much of that money any time soon.
Tasha lists just $58,595 in total assets to her name, and the vast majority of that comes from a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado that’s tied as collateral to an unpaid auto loan. She listed only $11,750 in other property, including two Louis Vuitton purses, and just $95 in actual cash in her bank account. She counts the trademark to her “UnWineWithTashaK” YouTube channel as an asset, but says the value of the brand is “unknown.”
Attorneys for Cardi B, who have been legally pursuing the money for months, did not immediately return a request for comment.
Cardi sued Tasha in 2019, over what the rapper’s lawyers called a “malicious campaign” on social media and YouTube aimed at hurting Cardi’s reputation. The star’s attorneys said they had repeatedly tried – and failed – to get her to pull her videos down.
One Tasha video cited in the lawsuit includes a statement that Cardi had done sex acts “with beer bottles on f—ing stripper stages.” Others videos said the superstar had contracted herpes; that she had been a prostitute; that she had cheated on her husband; and that she had done hard drugs.
Following a trial in January, jurors sided decisively with Cardi B, holding Tasha liable for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They ordered her and her company to pay than $2.5 million in damages and another $1.3 million in legal fees incurred by Cardi. Tasha appealed the verdict last summer, but a federal appeals court easily rejected that request in March.
Tasha has vowed to keep fighting the case “all the way to the Supreme Court if need be,” even if it “takes years” to do so. But Thursday’s bankruptcy will impose an automatic pause on all litigation while the insolvency proceedings are carried out. And given her lack of resources, it seems unlikely that she will be able to afford the expense of continuing to seek to overturn the verdict.
Tasha’s company, Kebe Studios LLC, is solely on the hook for $500,000 of the judgment. It does not appear that the company itself has yet filed for bankruptcy, or if such proceedings will be handled as part of Tasha’s case.
Beyond her assets and liabilities, Thursdays’ bankruptcy filing includes other interesting information about Cardi’s nemesis. The blogger says that $10,000 in her “Google account” – a reference to YouTube’s parent company – was already garnished last year by the superstar’s attorneys. She also says that she and her husband earned a combined income from their work (both are listed as “content creators”) of $156,021 in 2021 and $134,861 in 2022, and that they make more than $30,000 per month currently.
An attorney for Tasha did not immediately return a request for comment.
Google has been ordered to pay Sonos $32.5 million for infringing one of its smart speaker patents, marking a significant development in a long-fought legal war between the two companies that’s spanned more than three years and multiple lawsuits.
Filed in a San Francisco court on Friday (May 26), the jury verdict awarded Sonos $2.30 for each of the more than 14 million Google devices that were sold incorporating the patented technology.
The jury found that Google had not infringed a second patent at issue in the case.
Sonos first sued Google in January 2020, claiming the tech giant had infringed multiple patents for its smart speaker technology after gaining access to it through a 2013 partnership under which Sonos integrated Google Play Music into its products. Just two years after that partnership was reached, Sonos alleged that Google then “flooded the market” with cheaper competing products (under the now-defunct Chromecast Audio line) that willfully infringed its patented multi-room technology. Sonos additionally claimed that Google had since expanded its use of Sonos technology in more than a dozen other products, including the Google Home, Nest and Pixel lines.
“We are deeply grateful for the jury’s time and diligence in upholding the validity of our patents and recognizing the value of Sonos’s invention of zone scenes,” said Sonos in a statement on the verdict. “This verdict re-affirms that Google is a serial infringer of our patent portfolio, as the International Trade Commission has already ruled with respect to five other Sonos patents. In all, we believe Google infringes more than 200 Sonos patents and today’s damages award, based on one important piece of our portfolio, demonstrates the exceptional value of our intellectual property. Our goal remains for Google to pay us a fair royalty for the Sonos inventions it has appropriated.”
In its own statement, a Google spokesperson said, “This is a narrow dispute about some very specific features that are not commonly used. Of the six patents Sonos originally asserted, only one was found to be infringed, and the rest were dismissed as invalid or not infringed. We have always developed technology independently and competed on the merit of our ideas. We are considering our next steps.”
The legal battle between the two tech companies has been protracted, with both sides going on the offensive at different points. In June 2020, Google filed suit against Sonos, alleging the smart speaker maker had actually infringed several of its own patents. Sonos subsequently filed two more lawsuits alleging that Google had infringed several additional patents it held.
Sonos filed one of those two cases with the U.S. International Trade Commission, which ruled in January 2022 that Google had infringed a total of five of Sonos’ audio technology patents and barred it from importing the infringing products from China. However, the commission also found that Google had successfully redesigned its products to avoid the Sonos patents and could continue selling those reworked versions in U.S. stores — an allowance Sonos had fought to prevent.
In August 2022, Google fired another volley with two additional lawsuits, claiming the smaller company used seven different patented Google technologies to instill the so-called “magic” in Sonos software.
The U.S. Department of Justice is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid a case alleging Google stole millions of song lyrics from the music database Genius, calling it a “poor vehicle” for a high court showdown.
Genius — a platform that lets users add and annotate lyrics — wants the justices to revive its lawsuit, which claims that Google improperly used the site’s carefully-transcribed content for its search results, after the case was dismissed by a lower court last year.
But in a brief filed Tuesday (May 23), the U.S. Solicitor General told the Supreme Court to steer clear. It said the case was a “poor vehicle” for reviewing the issues in the case, and that the lower court did not appear to have done anything particularly novel when it dismissed the case against Google.
“In the view of the United States, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied,” the government wrote.
Genius sued the tech giant in 2019, claiming Google had stolen the site’s carefully-transcribed content for its own “information boxes” in search results, essentially free-riding on the “time, labor, systems and resources” that go into creating such a service. In a splashy twist, Genius said it had used a secret code buried within lyrics that spelled out REDHANDED to prove Google’s wrongdoing.
Though it sounds like a copyright case, Genius didn’t actually accuse Google of stealing any intellectual property. That’s because it doesn’t own any; songwriters and publishers own the rights to lyrics, and both Google and Genius pay for the same licenses to display them. Instead, Genius argued it had spent time and money transcribing and compiling “authoritative” versions of lyrics, and that Google had breached the site’s terms of service by “exploiting” them without permission.
But in March, that distinction proved fatal for Genius. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the case, ruling that only the actual copyright owners — songwriters or publishers — could have filed such a case, not a site that merely transcribed the lyrics. In technical terms, the court said the case was “preempted” by federal copyright law, meaning that the accusations from Genius were so similar to a copyright claim that they could only have been filed that way.
In taking the case to the Supreme Court, Genius argued the ruling would be a disaster for websites that spend time and money to aggregate user-generated content online. Such companies should be allowed to protect that effort against clear copycats, the company said, even if they don’t hold the copyright. “Big-tech companies like Google don’t need any assists from an overly broad view of copyright preemption,” the company wrote.
Such petitions are always a long shot since the Supreme Court takes less than 2% of the 7,000 cases it receives each year. But in December, the justices asked the DOJ to weigh in on whether it should take the Genius case.
In Tuesday’s filing, the DOJ said firmly that it should not — arguing, among other things, that the lower court’s ruling for Google had been largely correct. Though the agency had quibbles with some of the lower court’s analysis, it said Genius was essentially using contract law to claim the same rights as a copyright owner — the exact scenario in which such claims can be “preempted” by federal law.
“In substance, petitioner asserts a right to prevent commercial copying of its lyric transcriptions by all persons who gain access to them, without regard to any express manifestation of consent by website visitors,” the agency wrote.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether or not to hear the case; a decision on that question should arrive in the next several months. A spokesperson for Genius did not immediately return a request for comment on the DOJ’s filing.
Read the DOJ’s entire brief HERE.
A Texas grand jury has officially indicted TakeOff’s alleged shooter on murder charges, KHOU reported Thursday (May 25) after receiving confirmation from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Takeoff (born Kirshnik Khari Ball) was shot and killed during a private party he attended at 810 Billiards & Bowling in downtown Houston with his uncle and bandmate, Quavo, on Nov. 1. The Migos rapper, who was 28 at the time of his death, was killed by “penetrating gunshot wounds of head and torso into arm,” according to a report from the Harris County coroner’s office.
The alleged shooter, Patrick Xavier Clark, was arrested on the east side of Houston the same night and charged with murder. Another man allegedly involved in the incident, 22-year-old Cameron Joshua, was arrested and charged with the unlawful carrying of a weapon. Clark was subsequently released on $1 million bond in January.
The Harris County District Attorney’s Office did not immediately return a request for confirmation on Clark’s indictment. Clark’s attorney, Carl Moore, also did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
In a statement to KHOU, Moore said the indictment was expected, stating, “We would ask people to remember that getting an indictment requires meeting a very, very minimal standard of proof. When we get inside a courtroom and in front of a jury, where we will be able to put on our evidence and cross-examine the state’s witnesses — where the standard of proof is guilt beyond reasonable doubt – we expect the jury will come back with a verdict of not guilty.”
According to court records, following his release on bond, Clark was put under 24/7 house arrest, forbidden from having contact with anyone involved in the incident and required to wear a GPS monitor that would immediately notify prosecutors and defense attorneys of any violations. He was also asked to submit to drug testing and could not drink alcohol, as court records indicate that “alcohol was a factor in the offense.”
Adidas secretly filed a legal action last year in federal court that successfully froze $75 million in bank accounts held by Kanye West’s Yeezy brand after their high-profile split, newly unsealed court documents show.
Federal court records obtained by Billboard show that the case was filed on Nov. 11, just weeks after the German sneaker giant publicly terminated its relationship with the embattled rapper (sometimes known as Ye) in the wake of his antisemitic statements and other erratic behavior.
Adidas filed the case to ensure such funds were not transferred out of Yeezy’s bank accounts while the two companies litigated their business divorce via private arbitration. And a federal judge quickly granted the company’s request for such an “attachment” order on a so-called ex parte basis — meaning the judge issued the freeze without giving Yeezy a chance to make counter-arguments.
“Petitioner has demonstrated that it has satisfied the grounds for an ex parte attachment because the court is satisfied that there is a risk that Yeezy will remove or dissipate assets if notice of this request for attachment is given to Yeezy,” Judge Valerie E. Caproni wrote in her Nov. 11 order freezing the money.
The existence of the litigation was first reported Wednesday evening (May 24) by the legal news outlet Law360.
The newly-revealed litigation with Yeezy is just one piece of a messy breakup for Adidas. With the company sitting on $1.3 billion worth of unsold Yeezys, CEO Bjorn Gulden announced earlier this month that Adidas would begin selling them, but would “donate money to the organizations that help us and were harmed by what Ye said.”
While West himself had previously disclosed that Adidas filed a federal case to freeze assets — he claimed in a November video that the company had “put a $75 million hold” on his bank accounts — the actual existence of the case could not be independently confirmed because it was filed “under seal,” meaning it was not made public like normal legal filings.
But last week, the case and its key documents were unsealed, thanks to another ruling earlier in the month by Judge Caproni. Referencing West’s own comments disclosing the case, the judge said the desire of both sides for “confidentiality” was now outweighed by the public right to access court records.
“Notably, the attachment itself is no longer confidential as Ye discussed Adidas’s decision to ‘freeze’ his accounts in a public interview, and accordingly, no confidentiality interest exists as to the existence of the attachment order,” Judge Caproni wrote on May 9. “The court further finds that any trade secrets or sensitive business information may adequately be protected through redaction.”
Now, the newly-unsealed court docket shows that lawyers for Adidas and Yeezy are currently sparring over whether the asset freeze should remain in place going forward.
In an April filing, Yeezy’s lawyers urged Judge Caproni to undo the freeze, arguing that Adidas had “failed to show that it was ever entitled to such an order in the first place.” Yeezy’s lawyers said Adidas had made procedural errors in securing the order and had not provided enough proof that it needed the freeze to remain in place.
“Adidas has offered no evidence that Yeezy is currently insolvent or that it has made any effort to conceal its assets or put them beyond Adidas’s reach in the event Adidas obtains an arbitral award against Yeezy,” attorney Peter D. Hawkes wrote for the brand. “Nor has Adidas offered anything more than speculation that, in the absence of attachment, collection of any arbitral award would be more challenging.”
Adidas strongly disagrees. In its own brief filed in early May, the company argued that West had demonstrated a “pattern of volatile behavior” and was in “severe financial stress,” imperiling Adidas’s ability to recover the funds the company believes it will win in the pending arbitration battle.
“There is every indication that if released, Yeezy will spend them, misusing Adidas’s property and rendering an award against them ineffectual,” the company wrote.
Adidas also warned that, if the $75 million is released, West’s conduct had severely harmed his own ability to earn it back in other ways. The company rattled off a list of alleged incidents, including West “stating his admiration of Hitler” and “suggesting that Jewish people ‘are used by the Chinese’ to control Black people.”
“Ye [has] further diminished the value of his endorsement and commercial opportunities by continuing to make racist and incendiary statements,” Adidas’s lawyers wrote.
A lawyer for Yeezy did not return requests for comment on Thursday. A spokesman for Adidas declined to comment.
Los Angeles prosecutors are asking a judge to impose a harsh sentence against rapper Tory Lanez after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion, arguing he behaved with “indifference for human life” at a moment when Megan was “particularly vulnerable.”
Following his December conviction on three felony counts, Lanez (real name Daystar Peterson) faces a maximum of 22 years when he’s sentenced next month. But California law only allows courts to impose such “higher term” sentences when prosecutors have proven there are “aggravating circumstances.”
In a new filing on Tuesday (May 23) obtained by Billboard, attorneys for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office said Lanez’s conduct clearly met those circumstances. Among other things, they said Lanez had fired the gun not just at Megan one time, but five times “in the middle of a residential neighborhood.”
“The brazenness of defendant’s conduct is alarming but the conscious disregard for the well-being and safety of all those around him signifies a high degree of indifference for human life,” prosecutors wrote.
The filing also said Megan had been “particularly vulnerable” at the moment of the crime, another factor that can serve as aggravating circumstances. She had been “unarmed and completely defenseless,” they wrote, while “dressed in only a bikini, shoeless and on foot in a neighborhood completely foreign to her.”
“As she walked away from defendant, unaware he was armed with a firearm, defendant fired multiple rounds at victim striking her bare feet,” the filing said. “She was afforded no opportunity and was in no position to defend herself, find cover, or shield herself in any way. Besides an argument in the car, there was no justifiable provocation or event that would have signaled to her that defendant would have fired a gun at her, not just once but five times.”
Attorneys for Lanez did not immediately return a request for comment on the new filing.
Lanez was convicted on Dec. 23 on three felony charges over the mid-2020 incident, during which the rapper allegedly shot Megan (real name Megan Pete) in the foot during an argument after a pool party in the Hollywood Hills.
The shooting happened in the early-morning hours of July 12, 2020, when a driver was shuttling Lanez, Megan and her assistant and friend Kelsey Harris from a party at Kylie Jenner’s house. According to prosecutors, Megan got out of the vehicle during an argument and began walking away when Lanez shouted “Dance, bitch!” and proceeded to shoot at her feet.
Following the incident, Megan initially told police officers that she had cut her foot stepping on broken glass, but days later alleged that she had been shot. Lanez was eventually charged with the shooting in October 2022.
During the blockbuster trial, Lanez’s lawyers made their best effort to sow doubt over who had pulled the trigger, painting a scenario in which Harris could have been the shooter. But a key defense witness offered confusing eyewitness testimony, and prosecutors pointed to an earlier interview in which Harris pinned the blame squarely on Lanez. Megan herself offered powerful testimony that Lanez had been the one to shoot her; neither Lanez nor the driver took the witness stand.
Following the guilty verdict, Lanez’s attorneys filed a motion seeking a new trial. They called the case a “miscarriage of justice,” arguing that Judge David Herriford made numerous errors that had put their client at an unfair advantage.
But that motion was denied last month, clearing the way for sentencing. A hearing is currently set for June 13, but such scheduled events have often been pushed back in Lanez’s case.
Fetty Wap was sentenced to six years in federal prison Wednesday after pleading guilty last year to federal drug charges.
Attorneys for the “Trap Queen” star (real name Willie Junior Maxwell II) had urged the judge to issue only a five-year sentence, the minimum allowed under the law. Prosecutors instead asked for between seven and nine years, urging the judge to “send a message” against a star who used his music to “glamorize the drug trade.”
At a hearing Wednesday in Long Island federal court, Judge Joanna Seybert split the difference – ordering the rapper to serve a six-year sentence, to be followed by an additional five years of post-release supervision.
An attorney for Fetty did not immediately return a request for comment. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office confirmed the sentence but declined to comment further.
Fetty Wap was arrested in October 2021 at Rolling Loud New York, after prosecutors unveiled an indictment against him and five others. Prosecutors claimed group had shipped more than 100 kilograms of the drugs from California and distributed them on Long Island, contributing to “the addiction and overdose epidemic we have seen time and time again tear people’s lives apart.”
In August, Fetty admitted to participating in the scheme, pleading guilty to a single charge of conspiring to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine.
Ahead of Wednesday’s sentencing hearing, his lawyers pleaded for leniency, saying he “realizes the terrible mistake he made” and is “truly sorry for the loss and hurt he has caused.” Seeking the minimum of five years, they argued that Fetty only turned to crime to support family members as his touring income dried up during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Personal gain was not his motivation,” they wrote. “Rather, he was motivated by his commitment to financially support others.”
But prosecutors quickly fired back with a darker story: Of a successful musician who had already earned millions but chose to “supplement his income” by selling “drugs he knew would ruin lives.” And notably, they cited Fetty’s music itself, claiming he should receive a harsher punishment in part because he used his songs to “glamorize the drug trade.”
“Before his arrest, the defendant became famous singing about his experience cooking crack cocaine, selling drugs and making substantial money from those illegal endeavors,” prosecutors wrote. “Young people who admire the defendant and are considering selling drugs need to be sent a message.”
Such references to rap lyrics in criminal cases has come under scrutiny in recent years. Critics say drugs and violence are stock elements of hip-hop and should not be treated literally — and that by doing so, prosecutors infringe on free speech and sway courts with unfair evidence, with predictably disproportionate harm inflicted on Black artists.