Legal
Page: 107
All state-level charges filed against R. Kelly in Cook County, Illinois, have been dropped, state attorney Kim Foxx announced at a press conference Monday (Jan. 30). Kelly is scheduled to appear in court on the indictments, which include 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, on Tuesday morning.
In making the announcement, Foxx reiterated Kelly’s convictions in federal court in New York and Illinois to explain the prosecutors’ decision. “Due to the extensive sentences that these convictions hold, our office has decided not to continue to expend our limited resources and court time with the indictments that we previously charged Mr. Kelly [with],” she said.
In the New York federal case, Kelly was found guilty in September 2021 on all nine counts, including racketeering and sex trafficking; he was sentenced to 30 years in prison the following June. In September, he was convicted on three counts of child pornography in the Illinois federal case but acquitted of a conspiracy to obstruct justice charge that stemmed from an accusation that he’d fixed his state child pornography trial in 2008. Though he has not yet been sentenced in that case, he faces between 10 and 90 years in prison, according to Foxx.
Foxx — who previously revealed her own history as a victim of sexual abuse — grew visibly emotional during her time at the podium as she admitted that for the four victims in the state case, the outcome “may be disappointing. But I want to acknowledge that when we brought these charges forward, we brought them because we believed the allegations to be credible. And we believed that they deserved to have the opportunity to have the allegations heard.
“These women, both those who are named in our indictments and the women in New York and in the Northern District of Illinois, are to be commended for their bravery and their relentless pursuit of justice, no matter how long it took,” she continued.
Despite Foxx’s weighty and considered comments Monday, the announcement isn’t particularly surprising in light of Kelly’s dual convictions in federal court. After the disgraced singer was found guilty in the New York case, criminal defense attorney Isabelle A. Kirshner told Billboard that local jurisdictions in Illinois as well as Minnesota — where he still faces state charges — may choose to drop some of all of the charges in order to preserve resources.
Based on the New York sentence alone, Kelly won’t be eligible for release until he is around 80 years old.
[Trigger warning: this article contains descriptions of domestic violence, as well as sexual and physical abuse.]
Marilyn Manson is the subject of a new lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct. The suit by the woman — identified anonymously as “Jane Doe” in the filing — alleges that the singer, now 54, groomed and sexually assaulted the then-underage girl during the early portion of his career.
Manson (born Brian Warner) is named as a defendant in the suit filed in Nassau County Supreme Court in Long Island, New York, alongside former labels Interscope and Nothing Records in a filing that includes accusations of sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the singer, and negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the labels.
The suit says Doe, then 16, first met Manson in 1995 after a show in Dallas when she waited outside his tour bus and the singer invited her and “one of the other younger girls” onto his tour bus where he allegedly asked for their ages and school grades while jotting down their phone numbers and addresses.
A spokesperson for Manson and the singer’s lawyer had not returned a request for comment on the Doe lawsuit at press time, and a spokesperson for Interscope/Universal Music Group had not yet responded to a request for comment.
“While on the tour bus, Defendant Warner performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct upon Plaintiff, who was a virgin at the time, including but not limited to forced copulation and vaginal penetration,” the lawsuit claims. At the time, the age of consent in Texas was (and still is) 17 and the suit notes that one of Manson’s band members watched “Defendant Warner sexually assault Plaintiff… Plaintiff was in pain, scared, upset, humiliated and confused. After he was done, Defendant Warner laughed at her. … Then Defendant Warner demanded Plaintiff to ‘get the f–k off of my bus’ and threatened Plaintiff that, if she told anyone, he would kill her and her family.”
More than a dozen women have accused Manson of sexual, emotional and physical assault, including actress Evan Rachel Wood, who was the subject of the two-part HBO documentary Phoenix Rising last year that delved into her claims of the abuse she claims she allegedly suffered at the rocker’s hand during an on-and-off relationship that began when she was 18.
Manson and one of his accusers, actress Esme Bianco, recently reached a settlement to end her sexual assault lawsuit, and earlier in the month a judge dismissed another sexual abuse suit from model Ashley Morgan Smithline over her failure to find a new lawyer. Last May, an L.A. Superior Court judge dismissed a suit against Manson filed by a former personal assistant alleging sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Manson has denied the allegations.
The new Jane Doe lawsuit alleges that a member of Manson’s crew gave her a 1-800 number and a password so she could meet up with the singer again, noting that the teen began using drugs and alcohol soon after the alleged sexual assault, and continued to do so for years after. The suit also alleges that Manson would call and chat online with the teen while asking her for explicit photos of her and her friends.
In the same year they met, Doe claims that Manson convinced the teen to meet him in New Orleans, where he “groomed” her by complimenting her artwork before he became more “aggressive and again sexually assaulted Plaintiff, including kissing, biting her breast, oral copulation, and penetration,” the complaint alleges. “After the second assault, Defendant Warner acted in a kinder manner nicer to Plaintiff and told her that he wanted to see her again.” As with Texas, the age of consent in Louisiana at the time was, and is, 17.
Doe said she continued to be in touch with Manson and his band, and when she was 18 moved to Los Angeles and began dating then-Nine Inch Nails drummer Chris Vrenna. (Billboard has reached out to Vrenna for comment.) In 1999, she allegedly attended a Manson show in New Orleans, describing a typical backstage scene that included “the availability of large amounts of drugs for her and others to use.” The suit claims that the woman then spent the next month on the road with Manson, taking drugs and spending time with the disgraced singer during which he would “groom, harass and sexually abuse” her.
The suit goes on to describe Manson’s increasing psychological control over Doe, in which he allegedly “purposefully and intentionally laid the groundwork necessary to intimidate and control her … As he did on countless occasions, Defendant Warner exploited this vulnerability to keep Plaintiff under his control. Defendant Warner often made Plaintiff feel alone and isolated by telling her that no one understands her other than him, which included her family. At the time, Plaintiff believed Defendant Warner and was compelled to keep following him.”
The suit claims the alleged controlling and grooming behavior continued — including “coerce[ing] Plaintiff to have sex with him and other band members or his assistant at the same time,” while “providing Plaintiff with drugs.”
In details that bear a resemblance to allegations from a number of the other women who’ve accused Manson of abuse, Doe’s lawsuit claims that the singer employed “hostile and verbally abusive behavior,” as well as racially charged language mixed with the sharing of intimate personal details. The suit also claims that Interscope and Nothing Records “were well-aware of Defendant Warner’s obsession with sexual violence and childhood sexual assault,” and that the labels did not have a “reasonable system or procedure in place to investigate, supervise, or monitor its staff and/or agents, including Defendant Warner, to prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual harassment, molestation, and assault of fans, including minors and women.”
The suit continues, “As a result of Brian Warner’s sexual abuse and assault, enabled and encouraged by Defendants Interscope and Nothing Records, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional, physical, and psychological distress, including shame, and guilt, economic loss, economic capacity and emotional loss.”
Doe is seeking damages to be determined at trial and an order “enjoining Defendants from future unlawful business practices including, but not limited to, exposing minors and vulnerable adults to sexual abuse and exploitation.”
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
Valentina Trespalacios, a trailblazing DJ whose career was about to take off, was found dead on Sunday (Jan. 22). Her boyfriend, John Poulos, was arrested and charged with the alleged murder at Panama’s Tocumen International Airport, the Panamanian National Police said, according to CNN.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Her body was found in a blue suitcase in a garbage container on the outskirts of Bogota, the news network reported.
Poulos denied the charges during a hearing in Bogota, according to CNN, and his defense is arguing that due process was not respected. Another hearing is set for Jan. 31.
A DJ deeply engaged in the world of guaracha, a Colombian dance genre, Trespalacios emerged at 23 as one of the country’s promising DJs.
“We are shocked by the violent death of Valentina. She was a dreamer, a skilled DJ and potential producer who was working on several projects, including an album,” David Sarria, creator of Black & White, one of Colombia’s most memorable electronic festivals, tells Billboard.
Poulos, a 35-year-old U.S. citizen, fled Colombia but was detained Jan. 24 as he was about to board a flight to Turkey. The National Police of Panama shared video on Twitter of him being escorted by law enforcement, noting in a subsequent tweet that he was trying to head to Istanbul.
La Policía Nacional informa que Interpol Panamá detectó la presencia del ciudadano estadounidense Poulos John Nelson, tras la alerta dada por la República de Colombia, por el homicidio de la DJ Valentina Trespalacios. pic.twitter.com/fDkaE65gRj— Policía Nacional (@ProtegeryServir) January 25, 2023
His arrest followed a swift investigation by the Colombian Prosecutor’s Office, which collected evidence against him — including Trespalacios’ cell phone, which was recovered at Bogota’s El Dorado Airport, according to Colombia’s El Tiempo — and obtained his extradition to Colombia. He has been charged with aggravated murder and obstruction, modification and disappearance of evidence, according to the paper.
CNN reports that per Colombia’s Institute of Legal Medicine, Trespalacios died from mechanical suffocation, and that it appeared her body had been subjected to force before she died. El Tiempo also reported that her autopsy report showed signs of strangulation, and that her head, chest and other body parts had experienced blows.
The murder of Trespalacios has shocked the country and the music industry. She debuted in 2019 in the local electronic music scene, winning a prize at the Colombia Dance Awards, which has recognized the best DJs in the country for 12 years.
“She was one of the most explosive rising stars in Colombia’s clubs,” Pablo Silva, the awards’ creator, tells Billboard. “In 2019 she took home the Breakthrough DJ of the Year trophy and never stopped.”
Trespalacios made her way in tech house, and had been doing guaracha, the dance genre from Colombia that combines tribal house, cumbia and Latin. The genre is a phenomenon in the country’s youth parties.
Though she was young, Trespalacios had the opportunity to perform with some of her idols, such as Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike, Steve Aoki, Erik Morillo and Markus Schullz.
Trespalacios was laid to rest on Jan. 26.
A federal judge ruled Friday that hundreds of artists cannot join forces to sue Universal Music Group to regain control of their masters, saying the case raised big questions about “fairness” but that it was ill-suited for class-action litigation.
The ruling came in a closely-watched case brought by “Missing You” singer John Waite and others over copyright law’s “termination right.” The rule is supposed to let authors take back control of their works, but the lawsuit claims UMG has flatly ignored that requirement when it comes to sounds recordings.
Waite wanted to certify the case as a class action — a make-or-break move that would have allowed hundreds of UMG artists to bring their claims as a single lawsuit, represented by a single set of lawyers.
But in a crucial ruling issued Friday, Judge Lewis Kaplan denied that request, citing the complex and unique questions raised by each individual artist’s relationship with UMG.
“Plaintiffs’ claims raise issues of fairness in copyright law that undoubtedly extended beyond their own grievances,” the judge wrote. “However, the individualized evidence and case-by-case evaluations necessary to resolve those claims make this case unsuitable for adjudication on an aggregate basis.”
Waite and other artists sued UMG in February 2019, claiming the label had effectively refused to honor the termination right. The case was filed as a proposed class action, aiming to eventually represent hundreds of others in a similar situation. A nearly-identical case was filed on the same day by the same attorneys against Sony Music Entertainment, claiming it had adopted a similar stance on terminations.
According to the lawsuits, the labels have long claimed that sound recordings – unlike the underlying musical compositions controlled by music publishers – are effectively never subject to the termination rule. The basic argument is that most recordings are so-called works for hire, meaning the label essentially creates them itself and simply hires artists to contribute to them.
In seeking to pull hundreds of other artists into the lawsuit, lawyers for the artists argued that UMG has made those “fictitious” and “erroneous” arguments “in every instance” that an artist invokes the termination right – meaning they represent the kind of “systematic wrongful conduct” that is best addressed by a huge class action.
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Kaplan disagreed. “The … analysis requires understanding for each artist the circumstances in which the recordings were produced, the creative involvement, if any, of the record label, and the types of resources and payments the record label provided the artist.”
To decide if a record really was produced simply as a work for hire, the judge said tricky questions would need to be answered for each separate artist. Judge Kaplan said the evidence indicated that UMG sometimes only provided “big picture approval authority,” which could help an artist prove their right to terminate. But for other artists, he said the label was “more involved in the creative process.”
“Did the record label agree on the lyrics and music with the artist?” the judge asked. “Did the record label select the producers and sound engineers to work on the sound recordings? What level of substantive artistic feedback, if any, did the record label provide?”
The ruling is not necessarily a death-knell for the lawsuit against UMG, which will now proceed on behalf of Waite and a handful of others. Evan Cohen, the attorney who represents the artists, did not immediately return a request for comment.
The case could still make a big impact, class-or-no-class. Countless other artists have similar arrangements with record labels over highly-lucrative masters, but the legal arguments about when sound recordings are subject to the termination right have thus far only been lightly tested in court. A final ruling in favor of Waite could provide key legal ammo for those other artists, even if they need to bring their own cases.
A representative for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
But it will doubtless be a severe logistical hurdle for such cases actually being filed, since they’re expensive to litigate and artists typically lack the same kind of legal resources as the major labels who have denied their termination requests. A class action would have allowed the artists to pool their resources and secure a sweeping decision with only a single set of legal costs.
Friday’s decision will not directly apply to the similar proposed class action against Sony, which has been on pause for months as the two sides attempt to strike a settlement. But the new ruling, issued by a judge in the same federal court district as the Sony case, certainly does not bode well for that case being certified as a class action.
Read the entire decision here:
When does a soundalike song sound a little too much alike?
Rick Astley is suing Yung Gravy over the rapper’s breakout 2022 hit that heavily borrowed from the singer’s iconic “Never Gonna Give You Up,” alleging that the new track — an interpolation that sounded a whole lot like an outright sample — broke the law by impersonating Astley’s voice.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday (Jan. 26) in Los Angeles court, Astley claims that Gravy’s “Betty (Get Money),” which reached No. 30 on the Hot 100 last year, violated the singer’s so-called right of publicity because it closely mimicked the distinctive voice Astley used in the chart-topping 1987 hit.
“In an effort to capitalize off of the immense popularity and goodwill of Mr. Astley, defendants … conspired to include a deliberate and nearly indistinguishable imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice throughout the song,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “The public could not tell the difference. The imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice was so successful the public believed it was actually Mr. Astley singing.”
Pulling heavily from a song that boomed in recent years thanks to “Rickroll” internet memes, “Betty” was a major hit for Yung Gravy. But it often drew attention largely for its connections to Astley; the New York Times called it “a real-life rickroll that functioned as a comedy song, a TikTok trend and a nostalgia trip all at once.”
In their new lawsuit, Astley’s lawyers said the singer was “extremely protective over his name, image, and likeness,” meaning the unauthorized use of the soundalike voice had caused him “immense damage.”
Representatives for Gravy (real name Matthew Hauri) and Universal Music Group’s Republic Records (also named in the lawsuit as the label that released “Betty”) did not immediately return a request for comment.
Thursday’s new lawsuit raises big questions about the methods used in the music industry to legally borrow from older songs, an ever more popular tactic in a nostalgia-heavy age.
When they created “Betty,” Gravy and his team allegedly cleared the underlying musical composition to “Give You Up.” That gave them the legal right to recreate music and lyrics from the original in their new track — a process known as “interpolating.”
But the lawsuit says Gravy and his team weren’t able to secure a license to use the actual sound recording of the famous track — the better-known process of “sampling.” That would mean they didn’t have any right to directly copy the exact sounds, including Astley’s voice.
Instead, Astley says they hired Popnick (real name Nick Seeley) to imitate Astley’s “signature voice” on the track. At one point, the lawsuit quotes from an Instagram video in which Popnick said he wanted the song to “sound identical” to Astley voice.
By doing so without permission, the lawsuit claims that Gravy and Popnick violated Astley’s right of publicity — the legal right to control how your name, image or likeness is commercially exploited by others.
“A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorize the stealing of the artist’s voice in the original recording,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “So, instead, they resorted to theft of Mr. Astley’s voice without a license and without agreement.”
Astley’s allegations rely heavily on a 1988 federal court ruling, in which Bette Midler successfully sued the Ford Motor Co. for violating her right of publicity by running a series of commercials featuring a Midler impersonator. In that case, the court sided with Midler even though Ford had obtained a license to the underlying song.
The new lawsuit was filed by Richard Busch, a prominent music litigator best known for winning the blockbuster copyright case over “Blurred Lines.” In a statement to Billboard, Busch said: “Mr. Astley owns his voice. California law is clear since the Bette Midler case more than 30 years ago that nobody has the right to imitate or use it without his permission.”
In addition to violating Astley’s right of publicity, the lawsuit also accuses Gravy of violating federal trademark law by making false statements that made it appear that the singer had endorsed the new song. In an interview with Billboard, Gravy said he had spoken with Astley and that the singer had approved of the new song — that he “fucks with the song.”
“These statements were all false,” Astley wrote in his lawsuit.
Live Nation is not legally responsible for a deadly 2014 shooting backstage at a Young Jeezy concert, a California appeals court says, because such an attack was not the kind of event that the concert giant should have seen coming.
In a ruling issued Tuesday (Jan. 24), the California Court of Appeal refused to revive a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Eric Johnson, Jr., an event promoter who was shot to death during an August 2014 stop at a San Francisco-area venue during Jeezy’s Under the Influence of Music tour.
Johnson’s family claimed that Live Nation had been legally negligent because it didn’t have enough security measures in place to prevent the shooting, but the appeals court ruled that the attack was not “foreseeable” — a key requirement in proving such allegations.
“A violent attack by and between artists and their guests in the backstage area of a performance is not a foreseeable occurrence against which Live Nation should have provided preventative measures of the nature plaintiffs suggest,” Justice Stuart R. Pollak wrote in Tuesday’s opinion.
In its ruling, the appeals court suggested that Live Nation likely had good reason to be worried about incidents involving the crowd, citing reports that fights had broken out at previous events. But the court said those same red flags did not exist for potential violence backstage.
“The reports did not … indicate that any of the artists or their entourages engaged in or posed any danger of violence during the tour,” the judges wrote in the ruling. “The head of security also indicated that in her more than 10 years at the amphitheater, there had not been any violent incidents backstage.”
Attorneys for Johnson’s family did not immediately return requests for comment on Thursday. A representative for Live Nation also did not return a request for comment on the ruling.
The ruling in favor of Live Nation came as the company is facing a similar case over the high-profile stabbing death of Drakeo The Ruler at the Once Upon A Time in L.A. music festival in December 2021. Filed by the late rapper’s family, that case also centers on security measures Live Nation took — or didn’t take — that might have prevented a fatal assault backstage.
Johnson, 38, was shot and killed backstage on Aug. 22, 2014, at the Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain View, Calif., a venue leased and operated by Live Nation. According to his family’s lawsuit, Johnson had been at the event to “discuss his business arrangements for Young Jeezy to appear at a concert after-party” in nearby San Jose.
According to press reports at the time, Jeezy (real name Jay Jenkins) was taken into police custody in the wake of the shooting and charged with illegal possession of a weapon. But that charge was later dropped and no additional charges were ever filed against the rapper over the incident.
“Mr. Jenkins should not have been arrested and this case should not have been prosecuted,” Jeezy’s attorney told Billboard at the time. “We are pleased it has been dismissed, although frustrated that it took the police and prosecutors months to do the right thing.”
Court records indicate that no murder charges have ever been filed against anyone over Johnson’s killing.
Earlier versions of the civil lawsuit filed by Johnson’s family directly accused Jeezy of committing the shooting, but those claims were later dropped. They were replaced by allegations similar to those made against Live Nation, claiming the rapper’s allegedly negligent conduct was partly to blame for the attack taking place.
On Tuesday, in addition to rejecting the allegations against Live Nation, the California appeals court also dismissed the claims against Jeezy. The court ruled that the family had waited too long to bring the claims, and were thus barred by the statute of limitations.
Jeezy’s attorney declined to comment on the decision.
Read the full ruling here:
A man whose back tattoo was unwittingly photoshopped into a Cardi B album cover is once again asking a federal judge to revive his failed case against the rapper, arguing that the star “engaged in theatrics” on the witness stand and deprived him of a fair trial.
Weeks after Judge Cormac Carney ruled there had been enough evidence to support Cardi’s courtroom victory, Kevin Brophy formally requested a new trial Wednesday, seeking another chance to convince a jury that she “humiliated” him with the risqué cover of her 2016 Gangsta Bitch Music Vol. 1.
Among other things, Brophy took aim at Cardi herself, arguing that the star (real name Belcalis Almánzar) had committed “misconduct” on the witness stand by sparring with Brophy’s attorney, A. Barry Cappello.
“Almanzar repeatedly engaged in theatrics, refused to answer basic questions, impermissibly disclosed privileged and confidential settlement communications, and generally acted with total disregard and disrespect for the jury’s time and formal nature of court proceedings,” Brophy’s lawyers wrote.
Citing supposedly calm behavior when examined by her own lawyers – “a switch in demeanor that puts Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to shame” – the filing called Cardi’s testimony a “a deliberate strategy to frustrate Plaintiff’s presentation of his case and improperly influence the jury.”
Brophy sued Cardi in 2017 for millions in damages, claiming he was “devastated, humiliated and embarrassed” by the cover of Cardi’s Gangsta Bitch. The image featured the then-rising star taking a swig of a large beer, staring directly into the camera with her legs spread wide, and holding a man’s head while he appears to perform oral sex on her.
The actual man in the image was a model who had consented to the shoot, but a giant tattoo on the man’s back belonged to Brophy. Unbeknownst to Cardi, a freelance graphic designer had typed “back tattoos” into Google Image, found one that fit (Brophy’s), and Photoshopped it onto the model’s body.
Brophy’s lawsuit claimed Cardi and others involved in the cover had violated his so-called right of publicity by using his likeness without his consent, and also violated his right to privacy by casting him in a “false light” that was “highly offensive.” Cardi’s lawyers called the allegations “sheer fantasy” and “vastly overblown,” arguing that nobody would have recognized a relatively unknown man based merely on his back.
During a four-day trial in October, Cardi took the stand to defend herself. When examined by Brophy’s attorney Cappello, things repeatedly got heated between the two – so much so that at one point the Judge Carney cleared the jury, told Cappello he had “totally crossed the line,” and threatened to declare a mistrial.
At the end of the trial, the jury agreed with the superstar’s defenses, clearing Cardi of all Brophy’s claims. Brophy later asked the judge to throw out the verdict for a lack of evidence, but the judge denied that motion in December.
In addition to criticizing Cardi’s testimony, Brophy’s new motion on Wednesday also argued that his lawyers had been denied the chance to properly cross-examine the star, and that the judge had unfairly refused to let jurors hear about Cardi’s earlier defamation trial in Atlanta.
Attorneys for Cardi will have chance to file a formal response in court in the coming weeks. The star’s lawyers did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Read the entire motion for a new trial here:
A federal judge on Wednesday (Jan. 25) declared a mistrial in the high-profile courtroom battle pitting T.I. and wife Tameka “Tiny” Harris against toymaker MGA over a line of dolls, ending the proceedings after jurors heard inadmissible testimony claiming the company “steals from African Americans.”
A day after attorneys for MGA argued that the “inflammatory” testimony about cultural appropriation had ruined their chances of a fair trial, Judge James V. Selna agreed, granting a mistrial. That means the case will need to be re-tried in front of a new jury at some point in the future.
Following the mistrial, MGA told Billboard that “diversity has always been a key value” at the company: “We are disappointed that the trial was cut short, but look forward to vindicating our rights in the next trial.” An attorney for T.I. and Tiny did not immediately return a request for comment.
The ruling marks an abrupt end for the closely-watched intellectual property trial, in which T.I. and Tiny were trying to persuade a jury that MGA’s line of “OMG” dolls stole their look and name from the OMG Girlz, a defunct teen pop trio created by Tiny and starring her daughter Zonnique Pullins.
In their 2021 complaint, T.I. and Tiny alleged that MGA had committed both “cultural appropriation and outright theft of the intellectual property,” stealing the look of a group of “young multicultural women.” The lawsuit included side-by-side images, aiming to show how each doll was directly based on a particular member of the OMG Girlz, who disbanded in 2015.
On the fifth day of the trial, jurors heard videotaped deposition testimony from a woman named Moneice Campbell, a former MGA customer. According to court documents, Campbell testified that she would no longer purchase the company’s products because MGA “steals from African Americans and their ideas and profit off of it.” She also said that “hundreds” of social media users had agreed with the accusations, citing the fact that “people often steal from the black community and make money off of it.”
Earlier in the case, Judge Selna had already expressly prohibited such testimony from the trial. In one such order, he ruled that statements about “cultural appropriation” were “immaterial and impertinent” to the actual legal issues at play in the case and could not be made in front of jurors.
In a written motion filed after Tuesday’s courtroom proceedings had concluded, MGA’s lawyers demanded an immediate mistrial, arguing that the impact of the inadmissible testimony on the fairness of the case “cannot be understated.”
“There is no way to unring the bell of the jury’s hearing Ms. Campbell’s emotionally charged accusations that MGA has been ‘stealing’ from the African-American community,” the MGA attorneys wrote. “Her improper testimony cannot be challenged, rebutted or cured without drawing further attention to it.”
A federal judge says Kanye West’s lawyers need to keep trying to reach their client a little bit longer before the judge will allow the attorneys to take an unusual step: printing newspaper ads announcing they’ve dropped the embattled rapper.
In an order issued Tuesday, Judge Analisa Torres denied – for now – a request by attorneys from the law firm Greenberg Traurig to take such extraordinary measures to formally cut ties with West (who has legally changed his name to Ye). The firm says it has “exhausted all methods” of contacting the rapper, but the judge is not yet convinced.
“The court finds that GT has not provided sufficient facts to support its conclusion that personal service is impracticable,” Judge Torres wrote. “GT’s latest attempts… do not indicate diligent efforts at attempting to locate Ye.”
Greenberg, one of many law firms to cut ties with Ye in the wake of his antisemitic statements last year, has been trying for months to legally notify the rapper that its lawyers will no longer be representing him in a copyright lawsuit album over a song off Donda 2. Judge Torres already approved their withdrawal, but federal litigation rules and legal ethics require lawyers to personally serve clients with formal notice that they’ve been dropped as a client.
It’s this process that Greenberg says Kanye is evading.
In a Jan. 13 request, they argued that the star was engaged in “deliberate avoidance and obstruction,” including ditching his previous representatives and changing his phone number. Faced with that obstinance, Greenberg lawyers asked earlier this month to let them notify him by mail – or to simply print the notice in public newspapers.
“Given Ye’s public status, publication of the withdrawal order will likely garner significant media attention, resulting in broader publication and provide an even greater likelihood of apprising Ye of the Order,” the Greenberg lawyers wrote in making the unusual request.
But in Tuesday’s order, Judge Torres said she would need to see more proof that Greenberg had truly run out of options. She suggested that the firm could show that it had used databases to search for a new address, or even “hiring private investigators” to locate the star.
The judge gave the firm a Feb. 15 deadline to either successfully serve notice on Kanye – or offer more detailed proof to support the newspaper plan. Kanye’s former lawyer at Greenberg did not immediately return a request for comment. A press representative for West could not immediately be located for comment.
Prosecutors in Kansas City, Missouri dismissed misdemeanor assault charges against Tool drummer Danny Carey on Monday (Jan. 23) in an incident that took place at the city’s airport in Dec. 2021. According to Fox 4, a spokesperson for the court did not give a reason for the dismissal of the charges, telling the outlet that the case was a “closed confidential matter” as of this week.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Carey was arrested for misdemeanor assault at the Kansas City International Airport on Dec. 12, 2021 after allegedly getting into an altercation. Airport law enforcement received notice that evening of a “disturbance between two males at an airport terminal,” which resulted in Carey being arrested for misdemeanor assault and transported to a nearby Kansas City Police Dept. station.
The other man, whose name was not released at the time, was not taken into custody. Fox 4 reported that according to a ticket issued by officers, Carey intentionally inflicted injury when he allegedly yelled a homophobic slur at the unnamed victim while jabbing him in the chest with two fingers. TMZ video from the evening showed Carey being handcuffed at the airport and talking to officers outside the terminal, where he could be heard asking, “Who did I assault?”
At press time a spokesperson for Tool had not returned a request for comment from Billboard on the dismissal of the charges; a spokesperson for the Kansas City Prosecutor’s office had also not returned a request for comment at press time.
According to reports at the time, the Kansas-bred drummer performed in the stands with the school band during the University of Kansas’ basketball game against the University of Missouri the day before his arrest.