Legal News
Page: 79
The license of a Rochester, New York, concert venue was revoked Wednesday (March 8) while authorities investigate the circumstances of a stampede after a rap concert that left two women dead and injured several other concertgoers.
“It is one step we can immediately take to ensure that the events of Sunday night are not repeated,” Police Chief David M. Smith said at a news conference. He said he denied the Main Street Armory’s application to renew its one-year entertainment license after the venue’s owner did not attend a scheduled meeting with police and other city officials.
Rhondesia Belton, 33, of Buffalo and Brandy Miller, 35, of Rochester were fatally injured when audience members surged dangerously toward the exits following a Sunday evening performance by Memphis, Tennessee, rap stars GloRilla and Finesse2tymes. Police on Monday said the stampede may have been triggered by unfounded fears of gunfire. But police found no immediate evidence of gunshots.
One woman remained hospitalized in critical condition Wednesday.
Smith said the city planned to meet with the venue’s owner Wednesday to ask him to choose between voluntarily halting events or having the pending renewal of the entertainment license denied. When the owner did not attend, the chief signed an order prohibiting the armory from hosting “any public entertainment, which includes concerts, amplified music, and athletic events or games, including volleyball or cheerleading.”
There was no response to an email requesting comment sent to the Main Street Armory.
“Your contracted event security guards were unable to control the crowd as they were running, which in turn caused a human stampede,” according to the city’s letter to Scott Donaldson, which said he had violated a licensing requirement to maintain order at the site.
The city’s deputy corporation counsel, Patrick Beath, said criminal and regulatory investigations are under way.
“In addition to the police investigation, the Rochester Fire Department and code enforcement teams are inspecting the building and reviewing photographic and video evidence of the concert to determine if there were any fire code or building code violations at the property,” Beath said at the news conference.
The fortress-like armory was built from 1905 to 1907 and was initially used by the U.S. Army. It hosted sporting events throughout the 20th century before being shut down for several years starting in the late 1990s, partly because it lacked a fire-suppression system at the time. It began hosting concerts and other events in 2005 after undergoing extensive renovations.
Smith said its main arena is meant to have a capacity of about 5,000 people.
“The bottom line is, lives were lost, and we need to take steps to make sure that no lives are lost in the future if this was indeed something that was preventable,” he said.
Fatal crowd surges at large events have turned deadly before, including one at a 2021 concert by rapper Travis Scott in which 10 people died.
Famed funk act Earth, Wind & Fire is suing a rival group that’s been performing under the name “Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion,” calling them imposters who are infringing the band’s trademarks to “mislead the ticket-buying public.”
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (March 7) in Florida federal court, the company that owns the band’s intellectual property argued that Legacy Reunion’s only claim to the name is a few “side musicians” who briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
Despite that allegedly spurious link, the lawsuit says the rival group’s organizers “hatched a scheme to falsely imply in advertising that this new group was the real Earth, Wind & Fire.”
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote.
According to the lawsuit, the allegedly phony group is directly competing with the “real” Earth Wind & Fire, which has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016. Led by longtime members Philip Bailey, White’s brother Verdine and Ralph Johnson, the band operates under a license from Earth Wind & Fire IP LLC, a holding company owned by White’s sons.
In its lawsuit on Tuesday, attorneys for that company claimed that the organizers of Legacy Reunion (Substantial Music Group LLC and Stellar Communications, Inc.) have misled not only ticket buyers but resale websites like StubHub.
“The [Stubhub] ticket listing combines concerts by the real Earth, Wind & Fire with the band defendants’ promote, and the tickets offered for concerts by the band Defendants promote have nothing to do with the real Earth, Wind & Fire.”
Tribute acts – groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with the original. In 2021, ABBA filed a similar trademark lawsuit against a band that had been touring under the name ABBA Mania, calling it “parasitic.”
In the current case, Substantial Music Group allegedly used “Legacy Reunion” in listings (seemingly a reference to the former EWF members) but often in a separate font or in a different part of a logo. The group later allegedly changed the name to “Legacy Reunion of Earth Wind & Fire Alumni,” but the lawsuit claims the changes weren’t enough to avoid confusion.
Among other things, the lawsuit cited alleged examples of angry consumers who mistakenly bought tickets for the wrong band, including one that read, “This was not Earth Wind and Fire. NO Philip Bailey or Verdine White. It was just a band playing Earth Wind and Fire music. I purchased 3 tickets and I was very disappointed. It was truly false advertisement. I want my money back!!!!!”
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday in response to the lawsuit, Substantial Music Group founder Richard Smith called the trademark complaint “disappointing.”
“It is sad that a greedy corporation has chosen to use trademark law to attempt to pass judgment on which historic members of Earth, Wind & Fire are worthy of being called alumni of the band,” Smith said. “I was personally a member of the band for five years and performed on two tours and one album. I’m proud to be an alumnus of the musical group and the corporation’s dismissiveness of my and others’ contributions Earth, Wind & Fire is hurtful. We will not be erased.”
Read the entire lawsuit here:
A Los Angeles judge has handed The Offspring a victory in its long legal battle with former drummer Ron Welty, who claimed he was owed millions more in profits from the veteran punk band’s $35 million catalog sale.
Welty, the band’s drummer from 1987 to 2003, claimed that lead singer Dexter Holland tried to “erase” his contributions to the Offspring’s golden era, including by failing to pay him his rightful cut of the sale of the band’s rights to Round Hill Music in 2015.
But Judge William F. Fahey largely rejected his accusations after a bench trial last fall, calling some of Welty’s allegations “completely illogical.” And in a final ruling on Monday, the judge sided with the Offspring on all remaining claims.
“Judgement is entered in favor of defendants Offspring Inc.,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff Ron Welty shall take nothing.”
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, Welty’s attorney Jordanna G. Thigpen vowed to continue the fight: “In the few months I have been working with my deserving client and attempting to resolve this matter, it has become clear that the lower court was not the place where justice will be done. We are absolutely appealing, and look forward to higher authorities’ review of this court’s several decisions and its ultimate judgment.”
An attorney for the Offspring declined to comment on the decision.
Come Out and Pay
Welty joined the Offspring in 1987 and served as the band’s drummer across its heyday, including on its breakout 1994 album Smash and its 1998 peak with Americana, which reached No. 2 on the Billboard 200 and spent more than a year on the chart. When he left the band in 2003, no reasons were reported at the time.
But 17 years on, Welty filed a sweeping lawsuit in September 2020, claiming Holland and the other members had “forced him out of the band without cause” despite his “significant contributions to The Offspring’s success.” His lawyers claimed he was owed millions of dollars, and that the band was trying to “erase Mr. Welty and his achievements from the band’s history.”
“This lawsuit seeks, among other things, redress for The Offspring’s failure to pay Mr. Welty his rightful share of the band’s proceeds and a prohibition against their ongoing efforts to harm Mr. Welty, his legacy with the band, and his ongoing career,” his attorneys wrote at the time.
In particular, Welty’s lawsuit challenged the 2015 sale of the band’s music to Round Hill, which saw the company pay a reported $35 million for both the recorded masters for six studio albums and a greatest hits album, as well as the band’s music publishing rights covering its entire career.
But as revealed in later court filings, that deal was really structured as two separate deals: one $20 million payment split among the band’s key performers for the rights to the recorded masters, and another $15 million paid directly to Holland for the publishing rights, which he had retained exclusively.
In his lawsuit, Welty claimed he had not only been underpaid for his portion of the recordings, but that he was owed a portion of the $15 million Holland had earned from sale of his publishing rights.
But at a bench trial held in October, the other members of the Offspring’s best-known lineup testified that structure of the deal was fair. Both Kevin “Noodles” Wasserman and Gregory “Greg K.” Kriesel told the judge that Holland had written all of the band’s music, thus had rightly retained all publishing rights.
In a written decision in January citing that testimony, Judge Fahey ruled that the deal had been “structured in accordance with industry standards” and that Welty had failed to prove that he was entitled to a cut of Holland’s $15 million.
“It is hard even to envision a reason why these two other band members would agree to such a structure unless they believed that Holland was the creator and owner of the music compositions,” the judge wrote at the time.
“To adopt Welty’s theory would require this court to conclude that Wasserman and Kreisel knowingly walked away from a share of the additional $15 million … as part of some scheme to deprive Welty of additional compensation,” Judge Fahey wrote. “Such a conclusion is completely illogical as well as unsupported.”
The January ruling also rejected Welty’s separate accusations that he was owed hundreds of thousands in unpaid royalties.
Following that decision, other issues in the case remained technically unresolved, and the case might have proceeded to another trial at some point in the future. But in Monday’s decision, Judge Fahey made clear that his January decision had effectively ended the case and that “no issues remained to be tried.” All of Welty’s remaining claims against the band were “premised on the same allegations and present the same factual and legal issues on which the court already ruled in defendants’ favor,” he wrote.
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 deep-dive into the messy – and litigious – situation inside the iconic 80s rock band Journey; an update on YNW Melly’s death-penalty case at the Florida Supreme Court; a sudden dismissal of a copyright lawsuit against Benny Blanco, Ed Sheeran and others; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Don’t Stop Litigatin’
If you read one thing this week, make it Steve Knopper’s long Billboard story about the simmering problems inside Journey — an epic tale of internal dysfunction among members of an iconic band that’s still printing money decades after its “Don’t Stop Believing” heyday.
The story has it all: dueling security guards in green rooms; a multi-million-dollar pay-per-view wedding; a trail of fired managers and staffers; and an absolute all-timer quote: “This is Neal. I am fucking your wife.” But above all else, it has lawsuits — ranging from divorce to defamation to intellectual property to assault.
Sure, there’s the current battle between lead guitarist Neal Schon and keyboardist Jonathan Cain over a disputed American Express card. But there’s also the lawsuit filed against Live Nation over an alleged assault on Schon’s wife, a case alleging a “coup” by former bandmates Steve Smith and bassist Ross Valory, a trademark dispute with former frontman Steve Perry and much more.
For the full breakdown of the crisis inside Journey, go read the entire story here.
Other top stories this week…
DEATH PENALTY DISPUTE – Prosecutors urged the Florida Supreme Court to reject an appeal by YNW Melly from a ruling last year that said he could face the death penalty if convicted at an upcoming murder trial. The rapper says the state forfeited the right to seek the death penalty by failing to give proper notice, but prosecutors say he “suffered no harm.”
MARILYN MANSON UPDATE – A week after one of Marilyn Manson’s sexual assault accusers recanted her allegations, a judge ruled that the sudden reversal couldn’t be used as evidence in Manson’s defamation lawsuit against his ex-fiance Evan Rachel Wood. The move came after Wood’s lawyers argued the “eleventh hour” revelation was just a “bad-faith” effort to save Manson’s case.
COPYRIGHT CASE CLOSED – Two songwriters who sued Benny Blanco, Halsey, Khalid and Ed Sheeran for copyright infringement over their 2018 hit “Eastside” suddenly dropped the lawsuit. The accusers told Billboard that they decided that continuing the case would have been “too costly, challenging, and risky for us”; but Blanco’s lawyer said the accusations were “baseless” and “never should have been made” in the first place.
PODCAST POT CLASH – Chris “Kit” Gray, the president and co-founder of PodcastOne, was hit with a lawsuit claiming he fired his executive assistant because she refused to ship cannabis products from California (where they’re legal) to his home in Florida (where they aren’t).
TRAVIS SCOTT’S NIGHTCLUB SCUFFLE – Police in New York sought to question rapper Travis Scott after he was accused of assaulting a sound engineer and causing $12,000 worth of damage to sound equipment at Manhattan nightclub Nebula. His reps called it “a misunderstanding being blown out of proportion” and stressed that no charges had been filed. Scott is expected to sit for questioning this week.
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida prosecutor told jurors during closing arguments Tuesday (March 7) that three men on trial for the 2018 slaying of rapper XXXTentacion were “predators” who waited outside a motorcycle shop to rob and shoot the rising star, escaping with $50,000.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Prosecutor Pascale Achille played cellphone videos the defendants allegedly took hours after the killing that showed them smiling and dancing as they flashed handfuls of $100 bills. Michael Boatwright, Dedrick Williams and Trayvon Newsome are all charged with first-degree murder and face mandatory life sentences if convicted.
“This is who they are. This is their real character. Killers that within 24 hours after shooting the victim dead and stealing $50,000 from him, this is what they do,” Achille told the jury as she played the video. “Look at how happy they look. Look at how excited they look.”
She also played surveillance video from the motorcycle shop and from where two of them allegedly stashed an SUV that she says link the men to the killing. And she recounted statements from a fourth man, Robert Allen, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder last year and testified against his former friends.
George Reres, Newsome’s attorney, implored the jury not to convict his client based on Allen’s testimony or evidence implicating the other two defendants, saying, “He was not there.” He said that Allen, a 12-time convicted felon, should not be believed and that Newsome’s DNA was not found on any evidence.
He told jurors they should not believe Newsome is guilty simply because of the video showing him flashing money with the others, arguing he may not have even known where they got it.
“He did some stupid things — he posed with some money,” Reres said. “Guilt by association is not something the law permits.”
George Reres, Newsome’s attorney, implored the jury not to convict his client based on Allen’s testimony or evidence implicating the other two defendants – “he was not there.” He said Allen, a 12-time convicted felon, cannot be believed and that Newsome’s DNA is not found on any evidence.
He said they should not believe Newsome is guilty simply because there is a video showing him flashing money with the other defendants – he may not have even known where his friends got it.
“He did some stupid things – he posed with some money,” Reres said. “Guilt by association is not something the law permits.”
Mauricio Padilla, Williams’ attorney, called Allen a “liar.” He said the prosecution’s witnesses contradicted each other and Broward County sheriff’s detectives didn’t look at other possible suspects, including the Canadian star rapper Drake — he and XXXTentacion had an online feud. He said his client did tattooing and other work that paid him in cash, so the video of him flashing money means nothing.
Padilla also cast doubt on the value evidentiary value of the surveillance video, saying that while it may show his client in the store and walking back to the SUV, there are moments where the vehicle is blocked and Williams could have gotten out and left.
Boatwright’s attorney is to give his closing argument later Tuesday. The trial began a month ago.
XXXTentacion, whose real name was Jahseh Onfroy, had just left Riva Motorsports in suburban Fort Lauderdale on June 18, 2018, with a friend when his BMW was blocked by an SUV that swerved in front.
Surveillance video showed that two masked gunmen emerged and confronted the 20-year-old singer at the driver’s window, and one shot him repeatedly. They then grabbed a Louis Vuitton bag containing cash that XXXTentacion had just withdrawn from the bank, got back into the SUV and sped away. The friend was not harmed.
Boatwright, 28, is accused of being the shooter, while Newsome, 24, is accused of being the other gunman. Williams, 26, is accused of being the driver.
Prosecutors say the men, along with Allen, set out that day to commit robberies and went to the motorcycle shop to buy Williams a mask. There they spotted the rapper and decided to make him their target. Allen and Williams went inside the motorcycle shop to confirm it was him. They then went back to the SUV they had rented and waited for XXXTentacion to emerge and ambushed him, according to prosecutors.
The rapper, who pronounced his name “Ex ex ex ten-ta-see-YAWN,” was a platinum-selling rising star who tackled issues including prejudice and depression in his songs. He also drew criticism over bad behavior and multiple arrests, including charges that he severely beat and abused his girlfriend.
Florida prosecutors are urging the state’s supreme court to reject an appeal by YNW Melly over whether the rapper should face the death penalty if convicted in his upcoming murder trial.
Last month, lawyers for Melly (real name Jamell Demons) asked the Florida Supreme Court to tackle his case, arguing that prosecutors had forfeited the right to seek the death penalty by failing to give proper notice that they planned to do so.
But in a response last week, Florida’s attorney general told the top court that it should steer clear of the rapper’s case.
“Demons has suffered no harm,” prosecutors wrote in the Feb. 27 brief. “He was on notice for three years that the State was seeking death and at no time had the State indicated it was altering its sentencing intent.”
In asking the state high court to take up his case, Melly has argued that it raises issues of “great public importance” for Florida law beyond his individual charges. But in their response, prosecutors said there was no such pressing need for such judicial review.
“No other district court has been faced with this issue, thus showing that the issue rarely arises,” the state wrote in its brief. “Should a death sentence be imposed, this Court will have the opportunity to resolve this unique matter on direct appeal.”
Melly has spent years awaiting trial on first-degree murder charges over accusations that he and another YNW rapper shot and killed Anthony “YNW Sakchaser” Williams and Christopher “YNW Juvy” Thomas Jr. in 2018.
A first-degree murder defendant in Florida would typically face the possibility of execution if convicted, but Melly’s attorneys argued last year that the state had failed to comply with strict laws on how they must warn defendants that they’ll seek the death penalty.
Florida requires prosecutors to give notice 45 days after arraignment if they plan to seek capital punishment. In Melly’s case, the state attorney filed such a notice when they originally indicted the rapper in 2019, but failed to do so when a so-called superseding indictment was handed down earlier this year.
In July, a trial judge sided with Melly’s attorneys and said prosecutors had forfeited the chance to seek death. But in November, an appeals court ruled the judge’s decision was incorrect. The court wrote that since prosecutors gave notice that they might seek death when they first charged Melly in 2019, they had complied with state rules: “Notice is notice.”
Melly appealed that ruling to the Florida Supreme Court last month, arguing it was important that the death penalty law have “precisely defined and easily understood rules.” But like the U.S. Supreme Court, Florida’s top court hears only a small percentage of the appeals it receives.
In its new brief, state prosecutors urged the court to refuse to do so in Melly’s case: “Demons attempts to find conflict were there is none.”
A decision on whether to take the case will be issued by the high court in the months ahead. If it takes the case, both sides will then present more in-depth arguments on the disputed issues. If not, the case will return to the lower court for a jury trial on the murder charges against Melly.
Two songwriters who sued Benny Blanco, Halsey, Khalid and Ed Sheeran for copyright infringement over their 2018 hit “Eastside” have suddenly dropped the lawsuit. Blanco’s lawyer tells Billboard the accusations were “baseless” and “never should have been made.”
Konstantine Lois and Shane Williams, who perform under the name American XO, accused Blanco and the other stars of ripping off a 2015 song called “Loveless,” claiming that a core riff in each song involved “identical” musical features.
But in a motion filed Tuesday in California federal court, attorneys for Lois and Williams voluntarily agreed to dismiss the case. The filing said each side would pay their own legal bills; it gave no indication that any money would exchange hands or songwriting credits would be amended.
In a statement to Billboard, Blanco’s attorney Donald S. Zakarin said the accusers had unilaterally dropped the case because they were “certain to lose” and would have faced the prospect of repaying the stars’ legal bills if they had continued to litigate such a case.
“While we are grateful that plaintiffs belatedly recognized they had no viable claim of copyright infringement, it is unfortunate that our clients … ever had to deal with an infringement accusation that never should have been made,” Zakarin said. “Like many of the infringement cases we have been seeing in the last few years, baseless infringement claims come at a cost, not merely to our clients in defending but to the public because they will inevitably chill creativity.”
In their own statement to Billboard, Lois and Williams said they had dropped the lawsuit because they lacked “the financial resources or insurance to continue the fight.” But they noted that the judge had actually sided with them in an early-stage ruling, allowing their case to move forward.
“The obvious similarities in the songs created genuine concerns that our work was copied. Before filing the lawsuit, we hired a respected musicologist who shared those concerns,” Lois and Williams wrote. “We continue to believe that our concerns are not without merit, however, simply put, continuing forward with the case would be too costly, challenging, and risky for us.”
Released in July 2018, “Eastside” was the debut single for Blanco (born Benjamin Joseph Levin), who had previously spent years writing and producing major hits for other stars under the tutelage of producer Dr. Luke. The song, co-written and performed by Blanco, Halsey and Khalid and co-written by Sheeran and Nathan Perez, reached No. 8 on the Hot 100 and eventually spent 52 weeks on the chart.
But in May 2021, Lois and Williams claimed that Blanco’s hit was essentially lifted directly from their “Loveless.” In a complaint filed in California federal court, attorneys for the pair dove deep into the alleged musical similarities between the two tracks.
“Both the Loveless riff and the Eastside riff comprise of identical two note dyads of identical note intervals played over identical beats,” attorney Matthew Higbee wrote at the time. “Both riffs are played on guitar and require identical finger positions. Both riffs contain an identical slide of the fingers up the neck of the guitar between the second and third dyad.”
The duo claimed the allegedly stolen riff played a particularly important role in “Eastside,” because it was “repeated on a loop for the entirety of the song.”
Until very recently, the case showed no signs of an imminent settlement. As is typical in such lawsuits, the two sides were in the midst of exchanging reports by musicologists about whether the songs were similar enough to constitute copyright infringement. Both sides then planned to file motions seeking so-called summary judgment – a final ruling without a trial.
But last month, attorneys for Lois and Williams filed notice with the judge that their chosen musicologist had suddenly become unavailable to continue working on the case, and that they would need an extension of deadlines to find a replacement.
Faced with that request, attorneys for Blanco and the other pop stars quickly argued that sudden disappearance raised “serious concerns.” They said there might be an “innocent explanation,” but suggested that it also might be because Lois and Williams couldn’t find an expert who would testify that “Eastside” had infringed “Loveless.”
“If plaintiffs’ problems are the product of the weakness of their claims and their consequent inability to secure an expert who is willing to attempt a rebuttal of [the defendants’ expert], then they should dismiss this case now with prejudice instead of unnecessarily imposing on the time of this court and increasing the costs of defendants,” Zakarin wrote the judge on Feb. 13.
Two days later, the judge denied the request for an extension. Two weeks after that, Lois and Williams dismissed their case with prejudice.
The president and co-founder of PodcastOne, Chris “Kit” Gray, is facing a lawsuit filed by his former executive assistant, who says she was fired after refusing to ship cannabis products legally purchased in California to his home in Florida where cannabis is illegal. PodcastOne is also named as a defendant in the complaint.
Cherri Bell, an executive assistant with more than 20 years of experience including seven years at PodcastOne — which was purchased by media company LiveOne in 2020 — alleges that she was terminated on Feb. 10 in retaliation for refusing two requests by Gray to ship cannabis vape pens, gummies and other THC products across state lines through FedEx.
The suit, filed by Bell’s attorney Timothy McCaffrey Jr. in Los Angeles Superior Court on Friday (Feb. 24), claims that after relocating his residence from California to Florida “in or around November 2021,” Gray “began planning trips to the Los Angeles area beginning in January 2022” and, following each of those visits, asked Bell “to ship various items to his home in Florida in random boxes that she was instructed to collect from around the office” using the company’s FedEx account.
“On or around” Oct. 18, 2022, the suit continues, Gray sent Bell a text message requesting that she ship some clothing to his family in Florida along with another package he left at the office. “In this text he also thanked her and mentioned again that he did not want to take the contents [of the package] on the plane and that he was nervous keeping it at the office,” the complaint reads. Inside the package, Bell claims she found “smoking paraphernalia from a marijuana dispensary including vape pens and vials” and subsequently decided not to ship the items after determining it was illegal to send drugs and drug paraphernalia across state lines.
Bell was right: While marijuana possession is legal in a number of states, possession and transportation are barred at the federal level under the Controlled Substances Act. Using FedEx as a drug courier to ship more than 50 grams of cannabis can land a person in federal prison for five years.
When Gray allegedly asked about the package weeks later, Bell says she responded via text that she did not feel comfortable sending the envelope. Gray then allegedly responded, “‘Oh I wouldn’t sweat that,’ completely dismissive of Plaintiff’s concern even though he had admitted to Plaintiff that he was nervous about carrying the package and leaving it at the office,” the complaint reads. Gray also allegedly told Bell he wished she would have told him earlier, “since apparently his supply was running low,” and that he had shipped “similar items approximately ten times in the past.”
Two days later, Gray allegedly asked Bell to drop off the package, along with a few bags of “gummy bears,” with another female employee, who would take care of the shipment. Following this incident, Bell claims she “noticed a definite change in her working relationship with Gray and the way he treated her,” according to the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that Gray began to retaliate against Bell in the days and weeks that followed, including by delaying repayment of her expense report, giving her negative performance reviews and attempting to isolate her from the rest of the staff. While Bell was on medical leave for work-induced stress, it continues, Gray terminated her.
Bell is suing Gray and PodcastOne for illegal retaliation, wrongful termination and failure to pay wages upon termination.
Billboard made multiple attempts to reach Gray and PodcastOne/LiveOne officials but did not receive a response.
A Los Angeles judge ruled Tuesday (Feb. 28) that Marilyn Manson‘s lawyers could not cite a recent bombshell recantation by Ashley Morgan Smithline, one of his former abuse accusers, in his ongoing defamation lawsuit against actress Evan Rachel Wood.
Last week, Smithline claimed in a court filing she had “succumbed to pressure” from Wood to make “untrue” accusations against Manson. The singer’s lawyers wanted to use that as evidence in their lawsuit against Wood, who they allege orchestrated an “organized attack” of false rape accusations against her ex-fiance Manson.
But Wood quickly fired back that she “never pressured or manipulated” Smithline. And her lawyers asked the judge to ignore the new filing, arguing that the “eleventh hour” reversal by Smithline was just a “bad-faith” effort to save Manson’s case from being dismissed.
In an order issued Tuesday obtained by Billboard, Judge Teresa A. Beaudet sided with Wood’s lawyers, refusing to allow Smithline’s statements to be admitted into the case record for now because they had been filed too late.
That means the judge won’t view those statements as evidence at a hearing next month over whether to dismiss Manson’s case or allow it to proceed toward trial. The ruling leaves open the possibility that the statement could be admitted if the case survives.
An attorney for Manson declined to comment. A rep for Wood did not return a request for comment.
Smithline and Wood are two of several women to accuse Manson of serious sexual wrongdoing over the past two years. After the Westworld star posted her allegations to Instagram in February 2021, lawsuits quickly followed from Smithline, Manson’s former assistant Ashley Walters, Game of Thrones actress Esmé Bianco and a Jane Doe accuser. Another Jane Doe case was filed last month.
Manson has denied all of the allegations, and the cases by Smithline, Walters and Bianco have since been dropped, dismissed or settled. Now, the rocker is pursuing his own defamation lawsuit, claiming that Wood and another woman, Illma Gore, had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured prospective accusers to emerge simultaneously” with false accusations against him.
Last week, Smithline made her bombshell accusations about being “manipulated” by Wood in a sworn declaration submitted by Manson’s attorneys in the defamation case, stating: “I succumbed to pressure from Evan Rachel Wood and her associates to make accusations of rape and assault against Mr. Warner that were not true.”
The new claims came as Wood’s attorneys were seeking to dismiss Manson’s case by citing California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a law that aims to make it easier to dismiss cases that threaten free speech. Wood’s lawyers say Manson’s case is exactly that: an effort to punish the actress after she chose to speak publicly about years of alleged abuse by a prominent musician.
“For years, plaintiff Brian Warner raped and tortured defendant Evan Rachel Wood and threatened retaliation if she told anyone about it,” her attorneys wrote. “Warner has now made good on those threats by filing the present lawsuit.”
Manson’s attorneys wanted to cite Smithline’s recantation as a reason for Beaudet to deny the anti-SLAPP motion. They argued that it was early proof that they could eventually win their case against Wood, meaning it was a legitimate lawsuit and not merely an effort to stifle her free speech.
But Wood’s lawyers said the window to file such evidence had closed more than three months prior and must be denied: “Plaintiff’s ex parte application is a bad-faith attempt to save his meritless SLAPP claim from dismissal by requesting leave to file an untimely declaration, containing provable falsehoods, made under unreliable circumstances.”
At a hearing Tuesday, the judge denied the request to admit Smithline’s declaration. As reported by Rolling Stone, the judge said at the live hearing that there “really is no explanation as to why this [declaration] is bubbling up at this time.”
A hearing is set for April 11 to consider Wood’s request to dismiss the case under the anti-SLAPP law.
Evan Rachel Wood is strongly denying allegations that she “manipulated” Ashley Morgan Smithline into making allegations of rape against Marilyn Manson.
Days after Smithline made those explosive accusations, Wood filed her own declaration in Los Angeles Court on Monday (Feb. 27), saying she had proof that it was Smithline who had first contacted her with accusations against Manson (real name Brian Warner), not vice-versa.
“I never pressured or manipulated Ashley Morgan Smithline to make any accusations against plaintiff Brian Warner, and I certainly never pressured or manipulated her to make accusations that were not true,” Wood wrote in the filing.
Wood attached screenshots of purported text message conversations, including one in which Smithline told her “I have no reason to make this up!” Another set of messages read: “Just know you set me free. By listening. I love you.”
“Ms. Smithline has always told me that she was abused by Mr. Warner,” Wood wrote.
Smithline and Wood are two of several women to accuse Manson of serious sexual wrongdoing over the past two years. After Wood posted her allegations to Instagram in February 2021, lawsuits quickly followed from Smithline, Manson’s former assistant Ashley Walters, Game of Thrones actress Esmé Bianco and two Jane Doe accusers.
Manson has denied all of the allegations, and the cases by Smithline, Walters and Bianco have since been dropped or dismissed. Now, Manson is pursuing his own defamation lawsuit, claiming that Wood and another woman, Illma Gore, had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured prospective accusers to emerge simultaneously” with false accusations against him.
In a filing last week in that defamation case, Smithline made her bombshell accusations about “manipulation” against Wood: “I succumbed to pressure from Evan Rachel Wood and her associates to make accusations of rape and assault against Mr. Warner that were not true.”
In a response on Monday, Wood’s lawyers submitted Wood’s declaration stating that she had never coerced Smithline. They also filed formal arguments urging the judge to ignore Smithline’s new declaration, calling it nothing more than a “bad-faith attempt” by Manson’s lawyers to save his “meritless” defamation lawsuit against Wood from being dismissed.
“Documented evidence shows that it was Smithline who reached out to Wood about plaintiff’s abuse more than a year before Smithline now claims defendants somehow convinced her that she was abused,” Wood’s lawyers wrote.
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday in response to Wood’s new filings, Manson’s attorney Howard King said: “It is unsurprising that Evan Rachel Wood is desperately fighting to keep Ashley Smithline’s testimony out of court – because she knows the truth will expose her plot to manipulate the women who trusted her in order to destroy Brian Warner.”
On top of denying Smithline’s accusations about manipulation, Monday’s filings from Wood and her attorneys also came with explosive new allegations of their own.
In a separate declaration, a supposed friend of Smithline named Karl Neilson stated that he was in possession of a voicemail from July 2022 in which Smithline had told him that Manson’s lawyer, King, had improperly reached out to her directly to discuss the case — and that she was worried he was trying to get her to flip on Manson’s other accusers.
“I have not called back, obviously. Obviously, it’s very clear that a lawyer legally shouldn’t and can’t call me without calling my lawyer directly,” Smithline allegedly said in the voicemail to Neilson.
“The only reason why he would be calling me at all, a week ago, and leaving a message is that he thinks I’m the weak link, and he might want to settle with me to turn on the other girls, and say that it was all, like, a ruse,” Smithline allegedly said in the voicemail to Neilson.
In his statement to Billboard on Tuesday, King flatly denied that he had improperly reached out to Smithline.
“I never discussed Ashley Smithline’s claims against Brian Warner until after she had reached out to me and terminated her counsel,” King said. “Moreover, when Ms. Smithline recently spoke with me for almost two hours, we taped the conversation in full and that recording proves that every single thing in her declaration was taken from her words, not mine.”