Legal
Page: 103
A federal judge will sentence R. Kelly for his Chicago convictions of child pornography and enticement of minors for sex on Thursday (Feb. 23), when the 56-year-old singer will learn if he must spend the rest of his life behind bars or if he will have some hope of getting out.
The central question for the judge at the hearing in Kelly’s hometown of Chicago is whether to heed prosecutors’ request to order that Kelly serve a new sentence only after he completes his 30-year term imposed last year in New York for racketeering and sex trafficking.
A sentence that Kelly must serve consecutively would be tantamount to a life sentence.
Prosecutors acknowledge that a lengthy term served after the New York sentence would practically erase any chance of Kelly ever leaving prison alive. They say the Grammy Award-winner’s crimes against children and his lack of remorse justified that.
They recommend a 25-year sentence served consecutively. That would make him eligible for release in 2066, a year shy of his 100th birthday. The defense wants a sentence of around 10 years, served simultaneously.
If the judge does let Kelly serve his new sentence simultaneously with the New York sentence, he will serve no more than the 30 years and should be eligible for release at around age 80 — providing him some hope of one day resuming life outside prison.
Jurors in Chicago convicted Kelly last year on six of 13 counts — three counts of producing child porn and three of enticement of minors for sex. Kelly was acquitted of the marquee count, alleging he successfully rigged his 2008 state child pornography trial.
Kelly rose from poverty in Chicago to become one of the world’s biggest R&B stars. Known for his smash hit “I Believe I Can Fly” and for sex-infused songs such as “Bump n’ Grind,” he sold millions of albums even after allegations about his abuse of girls began circulating publicly in the 1990s.
In presentencing filings, prosecutors described Kelly as “a serial sexual predator” who used his fame and wealth to reel in star-struck fans to sexually abuse and then discard them.
Kelly’s lawyer, Jennifer Bonjean, accused prosecutors of offering an “embellished narrative” regarding Kelly and seeking to get the judge to join what she called the government’s “blood-thirsty campaign to make Kelly a symbol of the #MeToo movement.”
Bonjean said Kelly has suffered enough, including financially. She said his worth once approached $1 billion, but that he “is now destitute.”
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Los Angeles judge on Wednesday (Feb. 22) sentenced the man convicted of gunning down rapper Nipsey Hussle to 60 years to life in prison.
Superior Court Judge H. Clay Jacke II handed down the of-delayed sentence to Eric R. Holder Jr., 33, who was found guilty of the 2019 first-degree murder of the 33-year-old Grammy-nominated hip-hop artist outside the clothing store Hussle founded, the Marathon, in the South Los Angeles neighborhood where both men grew up in very similar circumstances.
After the monthlong trial, jurors in July also convicted Holder of two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and two counts of assault with a firearm for gunfire that hit two other men at the scene who survived.
Superior Court Judge H. Clay Jacke handed down the sentence Wednesday after hearing from one of Hussle’s friends and listening to a letter from Holder’s father that was read in court. Holder, dressed in orange jail attire, stared straight ahead throughout the proceedings and did not react when the sentence was read.
Holder was not eligible for the death penalty. He was nearly certain to get a sentence that would guarantee he would spend the rest of his life in prison, with only the details of his term in question.
The sentencing has been delayed in part so defense attorney Aaron Jansen could argue to reduce Holder’s conviction to manslaughter or second-degree murder, which Jacke rejected in December.
Hussle, whose legal name is Ermias Asghedom, and Holder had known each other for years growing up as members of the Rollin’ 60s in South LA. Both were aspiring rappers. But Holder never found the same success as Hussle, who would become a local hero and a national celebrity.
Actor Lauren London, who was Hussle’s partner and the mother of his two young children, did not attend any part of the trial, nor did any of his relatives, and none are expected to give victim impact statements, as often happens at such hearings.
Herman “Cowboy” Douglas, a close friend of Hussle who was standing with him when he was killed and testified during the trial, told the court that the killing was a tremendous loss both for him personally and for the South Los Angeles community where Hussle was a business leader and an inspiration.
“Nipsey was my friend, he was like a son, he was like a dad,” Douglas said. “Our community right now, we lost everything, everything we worked for. One man’s mistake, one man’s action, messed up a whole community.”
Douglas told the judge, “I don’t care what you give this guy. It ain’t about the time. I just want to know why. The world wants to know why. Why someone would do that?”
The evidence against Holder was so overwhelming — from eyewitnesses to surveillance cameras from local businesses that captured his arrival, the shooting and his departure — that his attorney conceded during trial that he had shot Hussle.
But Jansen argued to jurors that the heated circumstances of the shooting meant a lesser verdict of voluntary manslaughter was merited.
The jury returned with the first-degree murder verdict after about six hours of deliberations.
Jansen said afterward that he was “deeply disappointed” in the verdict, which they planned to appeal.
He did manage a minor victory for Holder by securing the attempted voluntary manslaughter convictions where prosecutors had sought attempted murder verdicts.
A year after his death, Hussle was mourned at a memorial at the arena then known as Staples Center, and celebrated in a performance at the Grammy Awards that included DJ Khaled and John Legend.
A new lawsuit claims that an antique car dealer crossed his heart and hoped to die when he promised Adam Levine a classic Maserati — but then fraudulently sold a different vehicle.
In a complaint filed Friday in Los Angeles federal court, attorneys for Adam Levine’s so-called living trust claim that dealer Rick Cole convinced the group to trade two classic Ferraris in return for what the dealer claimed was a rare 1971 Maserati Ghibli 4.9 Liter Spyder, one of only 25 such cars ever produced.
But the lawsuit says it later turned out that there are “serious questions” about whether the Maserati (valued at $850,000) is authentic — and that Cole took “active steps” to conceal the red flags.
“It is now readily apparent that Cole was well aware that the vehicle is not the actual [Maserati], and that the vehicle has a substantial cloud over its identity, authenticity, and provenance, crippling its market value to a figure far less than that paid by the trust,” lawyers for Levine’s entity wrote. “Cole egregiously never disclosed any of this to the trust, withholding this information in order to make substantial monies on the sale.”
Cole did not return multiple requests for comment in response to the lawsuit’s allegations. A spokeswoman for Levine also did not immediately return a request for comment; neither did a lawyer for the Adam Levine Living Trust — a type of legal entity that controls assets for individuals and the named plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Cole’s website says he’s spent decades as an “Auctioneer to the Stars,” claiming he’s sold more than 20,000 cars and worked with Frank Sinatra, Robin Williams, Sylvester Stallone and Jay Leno. Levine is listed on the site among the other A-listers.
According to Friday’s lawsuit, Levine’s trust agreed with Cole in early 2021 to swap a 1972 Ferrari and a 1968 Ferrari, valued at a combined $950,000, in return for the Maserati and $100,000 in cash. But the trust’s attorneys say that when the rare car was later put up for resale, it was revealed that an identical Maserati with the same vehicle identification number existed elsewhere.
The lawsuit says that a deeper investigation then revealed big red flags, including that the disputed Maserati had been withdrawn from a 2015 auction over serious concerns about its authenticity, including incorrectly stamped markings on the chassis. And the trust’s lawyers say they believe that Cole subsequently tried to fix those defects, though he still left “giveaways” that the car was not authentic.
“This demonstrates that, after the questioning of the authenticity of the vehicle at [the 2015 auction], someone tried to make the vehicle appear authentic by reproducing or stamping a new chassis plate to make the writing seem more like that used by Maserati at the time, in an obvious attempt to convince a potential buyer,” the trust’s lawyers wrote. “Upon information and belief, it was Cole and/or his agents who made these changes.”
The lawsuit also claims that Cole “repeatedly discouraged” the resale of the case, since he “obviously feared that if the Trust marketed the Vehicle, it would eventually learn the truth concerning its lack of authenticity and corresponding decrease in market value.”
In technical terms, the trust is suing Cole for various forms of misrepresentation, breach of contract, and fraudulent concealment; it’s seeking a court order rescinding the sale of the vehicle, or an award of damages of at least $850,000.
A man convicted of gunning down rapper Nipsey Hussle in 2019 is likely to get life in prison when he is sentenced Wednesday (Feb. 22) in a Los Angeles courtroom.
Jurors in July found Eric R. Holder Jr., 32, guilty of the first-degree murder of the 33-year-old Grammy-nominated hip-hop artist outside the clothing store Hussle founded, the Marathon, in the South Los Angeles neighborhood where both men grew up.
Holder was also convicted of two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and two counts of assault with a firearm for gunfire that hit two other men at the scene who survived.
The sentencing has been delayed in part so defense attorney Aaron Jansen could move for Superior Court Judge H. Clay Jacke to reduce Holder’s conviction to manslaughter or second-degree murder, which the judge rejected in December.
Jacke will have a broad range of possibilities when he sentences Holder at the Thursday morning hearing, but the murder conviction alone carries a term of 25 years to life. The other convictions, and special sentencing circumstances that jurors found true, make it almost certain Holder will spend the rest of his life in prison. Holder was not eligible for the death penalty.
“We hope that there is some resounding peace in the fact that his killer will be in prison likely for the rest of his life,” the lead prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney John McKinney, said after the verdict.
Actor Lauren London, who was Hussle’s partner and the mother of his two young children, did not attend any part of the trial, nor did any of his relatives, and none are expected to give victim impact statements, as often happens at such hearings.
The evidence against Holder was so overwhelming — from eyewitnesses to surveillance cameras from local businesses that captured his arrival, the shooting and his departure — that his attorney conceded during trial that he had shot Hussle.
But Jansen argued to jurors that the heated circumstances of the shooting meant a lesser verdict of voluntary manslaughter was merited. The jury returned with the first-degree murder verdict after about six hours of deliberations. Jansen said afterward that he was “deeply disappointed” in the verdict, which they planned to appeal.
He did manage a minor victory for Holder by securing the attempted voluntary manslaughter convictions where prosecutors had sought attempted murder verdicts. The sentencing, originally scheduled for September but postponed at the request of the defense, brings an end to a legal saga that lasted more than three years and a trial that was often delayed because of the pandemic.
Hussle, whose legal name is Ermias Asghedom, and Holder had known each other for years growing up as members of the Rollin’ 60s in South LA. Both were aspiring rappers. But Holder never found the same success as Hussle, who would become a local hero and a national celebrity.
A chance meeting outside the Marathon, in a shopping center Hussle owned, led to a conversation the two men had about rumors that Holder had been acting as an informant for authorities. Jansen argued that being publicly accused of being a “snitch” by a person as prominent as Hussle brought on a “heat of passion” in Holder that prompted the shooting.
A woman who was with Holder that day took a photo with Hussle before becoming Holder’s unwitting getaway driver, was a key witness for the prosecution.
After years of devoted work that won him underground acclaim — his nickname was both a play on the name of comedian Nipsey Russell and a nod to the hustle the future hip-hop star showed in making music and selling CDs — Hussle had just released his major-label debut album and earned his first Grammy nomination when he was killed.
A year after his death, he was mourned at a memorial at the arena then known as Staples Center, and celebrated in a performance at the Grammy Awards that included DJ Khaled and John Legend.
After nearly four years, late rapper Lil Peep’s mother, Liza Womack, has reached a settlement in the wrongful death lawsuit she brought against her son’s former label and management company, First Access Entertainment (FAE), according to court documents obtained by Billboard.
On Friday (Feb. 17), Womak — who is also the administrator of Peep’s estate — filed a notice in Los Angeles court that she had settled the case against all defendants. Details of the settlement agreement were not made available.
In addition to FAE, the 2019 lawsuit targeted Bryant Ortega, a member of Peep’s management team, and Belinda Mercer, Peep’s tour manager for his final tour in 2017, alleging they were responsible for the rapper’s fatal overdose of Xanax and fentanyl in November that year. Among other claims, Womack alleged that Mercer had a sexual relationship with Peep — born Gustav Elijah Åhr — and that she provided him drugs including ketamine. Rather than seek help for Lil Peep, FAE CEO Sarah Stennett was also accused of gifting the emerging rapper a bottle of pills during a group dinner.
The lawsuit further alleged that during a Los Angeles tour stop in 2017, Peep was “barely able to communicate, let alone perform, due to his use of drugs,” but that his managers still allowed him to take the stage. Womack also claimed the rapper wanted to quit the tour on different occasions, but that his team neglected his pleas and “pushed [Peep] onto stage after stage in city after city, plying and propping” him up with drugs. The suit additionally alleged negligence and breach of contract.
In February 2022, Judge Teresa Beaudet ruled that the case against FAE and Mercer could go on, though she dismissed the wrongful death claim as well as two out of four negligence claims against Ortega. FAE, Mercer and Ortega have all denied the allegations, with FAE previously calling the lawsuit “groundless and offensive.”
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: Eminem moves to block two Real Housewives from registering a “Shady” trademark, Drake’s deposition drama continues, Damon Dash wins a verdict clearing him of sexual assault, and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Eminem Says He’s (Legally) The Real “Slim Shady”
If your 2023 bingo card had Eminem picking a legal fight with a pair of Real Housewives, I have some great news for you.
The rapper’s lawyers filed a case at the U.S. trademark office last week aimed at blocking Gizelle Bryant and Robyn Dixon (stars of The Real Housewives of Potomac) from securing a federal trademark registration on “Reasonably Shady,” the name of their hit podcast.
As you probably guessed, Eminem’s attorneys were concerned about the similarity of the name to “Slim Shady” — a nickname the rapper has used for decades for a dark, violent alter ego. Given the overlap, they said consumers might be tricked into thinking Eminem was somehow involved with the podcast.
“Confusion is unavoidable,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote. “Applicant’s mark ‘Reasonably Shady’ simply looks and sounds like ‘Shady’ and suggests that it represents the services of Mathers.”
For a full breakdown of Eminem’s case — including all the actual legal documents and a response from Bryant and Dixon’s lawyer — go read our entire story here.
Other top stories this week…
DRAKE DEPOSITION SAGA CONTINUES – A Florida judge reversed himself and ruled that Drake wouldn’t need to sit for a deposition over the murder of XXXtentacion, seemingly swayed by the star’s arguments that he has no connection to the case. But the fight isn’t over quite yet, as defense attorneys are still pushing for a sit-down. Stay tuned…
CONDÉ SETTLES FAKE VOGUE SUIT – In other Drake developments, Condé Nast reached a settlement to end a lawsuit against the rapper and 21 Savage over their use of a fake Vogue magazine cover to promote their album Her Loss. The agreement included a permanent injunction barring any further use of the publisher’s trademarks as well as an undisclosed monetary payment.
DAME DASH TRIAL VERDICT – A jury mostly cleared Damon Dash in a case accusing the Roc-A-Fella Records co-founder of sexually assaulting a photographer. Following a four-day trial, the jurors found that Dash defamed Monique Bunn when he accused her of theft, but that he had not inappropriately touched her while she was sleeping at his house during a video project. Jurors awarded Bunn $30,000 in damages — far less than the $150 million she had sought.
R. KELLY CAN’T GET NEW TRIAL – A Chicago federal judge rejected R. Kelly’s bid to overturn his conviction last year on child pornography charges. Denying a motion for a new trial or acquittal, the judge ruled that prosecutors provided jurors with “enough evidence to sustain a guilty verdict on all six counts Kelly was convicted of.” Sentencing on those charges is set for Thursday (Feb. 23).
UTOPIA ACCUSED OF BAILING ON DEAL – Utopia Music was hit with a lawsuit claiming the buzzy music startup reneged on a $26.5 million deal to buy a U.S. music tech company called SourceAudio — and now owes more than $37 million because of the year-long delay. Switzerland-based Utopia had been on a buying spree over the past two years but announced in November that it would lay off 20% of its staff.
Eminem has picked a legal fight with two “Real Housewives” over their efforts to register the name of their Reasonably Shady podcast as a trademark.
Citing his Slim Shady nickname, lawyers for the superstar (real name Marshall B. Mathers) last week quietly launched a case aimed at blocking Gizelle Bryant and Robyn Dixon (stars of the Real Housewives of Potomac) from securing a federal trademark registration on their podcast’s name.
In a petition filed on Dec. 14 at the U.S. trademark office, Eminem’s attorneys said American consumers view the term “Shady” as a “unique and distinctive” term that’s linked to the rapper – meaning they would likely think that “Reasonably Shady” was somehow connected to Eminem.
“Confusion is unavoidable,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote. “Applicant’s mark ‘Reasonably Shady’ simply looks and sounds like ‘Shady’ and suggests that it represents the services of Mathers.”
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday (Feb. 21), Dixon and Bryant’s attorney Andrea H. Evans said the duo “intend to defend their trademark application” in the face of Eminem’s accusations. “The trademarks are not confusingly similar and the services are not related,” Evans said.
Bryant and Dixon launched “Reasonably Shady” in 2021, describing it a series of “conversations about being fearless women as they recount stories from their exciting lives.” They’ve released 80 episodes since, covering dating, relationships, motherhood, style, current events and other topics.
Last year, the duo applied at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to secure a trademark registration on the name for a wide range of offerings, including not just producing a podcast but also selling cosmetics, candles and apparel. If granted, the registration would make it easier for Bryant and Dixon to sue someone who used the term “Shady” for similar goods or services.
But last week, Eminem’s attorneys filed their case at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a court-like body within the USPTO where rival trademark owners can battle over who has better rights to a disputed name.
The rapper, who has “Slim Shady” and “Shady” for decades as the name of a dark alter ego, already owns a number of such trademark registrations on those names, covering music services and merchandise. Giving the similarity of the names, his lawyers say consumers will associate Bryant and Dixon’s proposed trademark with Eminem.
“Applicants use and registration of the mark ‘Reasonably Shady’ is likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers,” his attorneys wrote, saying the star would be “damaged” by the registration of Bryant and Dixon’s trademark.
A rep for Eminem did not immediately return a request for comment on the case. Dixon and Bryant have until March 26 to file a formal response at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Read Eminem’s entire petition here:
The trial of Moroccan singer Saad Lamjarred, who is accused of aggravated rape and assault, started in Paris on Monday (Feb. 20).
The 37-year-old Lamjarred, who is famous on the Arab pop music scene, allegedly raped a French woman at a luxury hotel on the Champs-Elysees in October 2016 while he was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine.
He has denied the allegations. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison. A verdict is expected on Friday.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The woman, who was 20 years old at the time, said that she met Lamjarred at a Paris nightclub and accompanied him to his hotel, according to the document summarizing the conclusions of the investigation that was read out by the presiding magistrate at the court.
She said that he struck her several times as she was trying to push him back before he raped her, the document said. She managed to leave the room, and hotel staff reported seeing her crying and in distress.
The woman’s lawyer Jean-Marc Descoubes, told reporters Monday that the alleged victim remains strong, despite the trauma she sustained. “It was extremely violent… It was very traumatic for her. She’s still being treated, but she remains strong, decent and courageous,” said Descoubes.
On Monday, Lamjarred told the court that he rejects the allegations of rape and assault. He acknowledged he had “occasionally” used alcohol and drugs at the time, but has since stopped.
The court said Lamjarred respected the conditions of the judicial supervision he has been under since 2017. Lamjarred is not permitted to perform in France, but has been allowed to leave the country for shows abroad.
Lamjarred is one of the Arab world’s most popular artists. His music video “Lm3allem” has more than 1 billion views on his YouTube channel, where he has more than 14 million subscribers.
King Mohammed VI awarded him Morocco’s highest national honor in 2015.
Lamjarred has also been charged with the aggravated rape of another woman in August 2018 at a nightclub in Saint-Tropez on the French Riviera. A trial date hasn’t been set for that case.
Condé Nast has reached a settlement to end a lawsuit against Drake and 21 Savage over their use of a fake Vogue magazine cover to promote their album Her Loss, Billboard has confirmed.
The agreement, first reported by the news site Semafor, includes a permanent injunction barring any further use of Condé Nast’s Vogue trademarks, as well as an undisclosed monetary payment from Drake and 21.
In an internal email independently obtained by Billboard, Condé Nast general counsel William Bowes said the company was “glad to put this matter behind us” but explained why the publishing giant had felt the need to file the lawsuit against the two rappers.
“As a creative company, we of course understand our brands may from time to time be referenced in other creative works,” Bowes wrote in the note. “In this instance, however, it was clear to us that Drake and 21 Savage leveraged Vogue’s reputation for their own commercial purposes and, in the process, confused audiences who trust Vogue as the authoritative voice on fashion and culture.”
Representatives for Drake, 21 Savage and Condé Nast all declined to comment.
The fake Vogue cover was part of a broader phony media blitz from the two stars, aimed at promoting the November launch of their album Her Loss. They also released a fake Saturday Night Live performance, teased a similar fake appearance on NPR’s Tiny Desk series and created an elaborate deepfake interview with Howard Stern.
NPR and Stern both publicly embraced the joke, but Condé Nast wasn’t laughing about the fake Vogue cover.
In a lawsuit filed Nov. 7 in Manhattan federal court, the publisher called the stunt a “flagrant infringement” of the company’s trademark rights, aimed at exploiting the “tremendous value that a cover feature in Vogue magazine carries” without actually securing that honor. Condé specifically pointed to Drake’s Instagram post teasing the fake cover story, in which he personally thanked famed Vogue editor Anna Wintour.
“Vogue magazine and its Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour have had no involvement in Her Loss or its promotion, and have not endorsed it in any way,” the company’s lawyers wrote at the time. “Nor did Condé Nast authorize, much less support, the creation and widespread dissemination of a counterfeit issue of Vogue, or a counterfeit version of perhaps one of the most carefully curated covers in all of the publication business.”
Just days later, a federal judge largely agreed with Condé Nast, issuing a preliminary injunction forcing the stars to pull down all references to the fake Vogue cover. The judge said the faux cover likely violated the publisher’s trademarks by “misleading consumers” and “deceiving the public.”
In the internal letter announcing the settlement, Bowes said Condé Nast had repeatedly attempted to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation but had been “left with no other option” after the superstars ignored their requests to stop.
“We have a fundamental duty to protect our IP when it’s clear that it’s being used without permission for something other than serving our audience,” Bowes wrote in the letter.
A formal notice of settlement has not yet been filed in the federal court overseeing the lawsuit.
A Chicago federal judge has rejected R. Kelly’s bid to overturn his conviction last year on child pornography charges, clearing the way for sentencing which is scheduled for next week.
Denying motions filed by Kelly’s lawyers seeking either a new trial or an outright acquittal, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber ruled Thursday (Feb. 16) that federal prosecutors provided jurors with “enough evidence to sustain a guilty verdict on all six counts Kelly was convicted of.”
Among other arguments, Kelly’s lawyers had argued that one of his victims (known as “Jane”) gave false testimony on the witness stand about whether she planned to seek monetary restitution from Kelly if he was ultimately convicted. They said the incident suggested Jane had “motivation to share her story in ways that were not entirely honest.”
But Judge Leinenweber saw things differently: “Simply because Jane and her attorney considered the possibility of restitution, does not mean she lied during her testimony,” the judge wrote.
Following a four-week trial in Chicago federal court, Kelly was found guilty in September on three counts of child pornography and three counts of enticing a minor. He was acquitted of other charges that accused him of fixing a 2008 state-court trial over the same child pornography accusations.
That conviction came after a federal judge in New York previously sentenced Kelly to 30 years in prison in June on separate racketeering and sex trafficking convictions.
Kelly is set for sentencing on Feb. 23 on the Chicago charges. He faces as many as 90 additional years in prison on those convictions.
In seeking to overturn the conviction, Kelly’s lawyers made a number of arguments, including that the government had failed to show conclusively that the singer “enticed” Jane into making child pornography. But Judge Leinenweber ruled instead that there was “ample” evidence to support the charge.
“Jane testified about how Kelly gradually persuaded her into sexual activity with him,” the judge wrote. “Jane described how Kelly induced her into making Videos One through Three and that Kelly positioned the camera and told Jane exactly what to do and say while having sex with him.”
Thursday’s ruling is not the final decision on Kelly’s conviction. His attorneys can still challenge the outcome to a federal appeals court and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court, though they face long odds in overturning a jury’s verdict.
Kelly’s attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday’s order.
Read the judge’s entire ruling here: