Legal

Record executive Kevin Liles is asking a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault in the early 2000s, arguing there’s zero evidence for the “salacious” allegations because they are “entirely false.”
In a letter to the judge filed Tuesday, attorneys for the 300 Entertainment founder say they’re planning to file a motion to dismiss the case, which alleges that Liles harassed and sexually assaulted an unnamed female employee while serving as the president of Def Jam Records in 2002.

“During his storied career, Mr. Liles has never faced a single accusation of sexual impropriety,” his attorneys write. “That is, until plaintiff filed this patently false and untimely lawsuit some twenty-three years after the alleged conduct purportedly occurred.”

Trending on Billboard

Liles’ lawyers say the Jane Doe’s lawsuit contains only generic accusations and almost no specific details to support her allegations – an omission that they say is “not surprising as the claims are entirely false.”

“Beyond these threadbare assertions, spanning only three paragraphs, plaintiff offers zero factual bases for her salacious allegations,” his attorneys say “This court need not credit Plaintiff’s threadbare recitals and ‘defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me’ accusations.”

Liles served as president of Universal Music Group’s Def Jam Recordings and executive vice president of the Island Def Jam Music Group from 1999 to 2004. After a stint at Warner Music Group, he co-founded 300 Entertainment in 2012 with Lyor Cohen, Roger Gold and Todd Moscowitz. The label, which quickly gained recognition for developing hip-hop superstars like Megan Thee Stallion, Migos and Young Thug, was acquired by Warner in 2021 for $400 million. In September, Liles announced he would step down from his role as chairman and CEO.

The case against Liles was filed in February by a woman who says she was hired as an executive assistant at UMG in 1999. She claims that Liles began sexually harassing her shortly after she was hired, which then “escalated” into groping. In an alleged 2002 incident, Doe says he assaulted her after she rebuffed his advances.

“Kevin Liles proceeded to physically force himself on top of [Jane Doe] where he began to sexually assault and ultimately rape her despite her continued protests,” her attorneys wrote in their complaint.

But in Tuesday’s response, Lile’s attorneys say those allegations are woefully insufficient, arguing they lack the kind of basic facts required to bring legal allegations in court. They say Doe “does little more than simply assert in conclusory form that Mr. Liles assaulted her.”

“Plaintiff offers no detail whatsoever regarding the nature of the purported assault she suffered,” they write. “She fails … to explain when these purported acts occurred, where in UMG’s offices they occurred, identify a single person she reported this information to, or who was present.”

As for the rape allegation, Liles’ attorneys say the case is similarly lacking: “Like the other specific details she fails to provide, plaintiff does not offer a specific time, how she came to be in contact with Mr. Liles who she neither reported to nor worked for, or anything other than the conclusory assertion that she suffered an assault.”

Beyond the alleged deficiencies in the case, attorneys for Liles say the case should also be dismissed for a simpler reason: That it was filed well beyond the statute of limitations. Doe’s attorneys sued under a New York state law that created a one-year window to file such cases, but did so after the deadline to bring them: “Plaintiff failed to assert any claim against Mr. Liles whatsoever during that one-year window, and it has now closed.”

UMG, which was named as a co-defendant in the case, also filed a letter Tuesday saying it would seek to dismiss the case. The music giant’s attorneys have similar protests about time limits, but also argue more broadly that they cannot be sued over alleged actions by one of its executives.

“UMGR cannot be held liable for the alleged actions of Mr. Liles,” the company’s attorneys write, referring to UMG Recordings. “Assuming he had engaged in the conduct alleged, UMGR is a music company and the alleged conduct was indisputably not in furtherance of any business of UMGR.”

Four years after DMX’s tragic 2021 death, a New York judge has ruled that his ex-wife can’t claim a 50 percent stake in the rapper’s music catalog and other intellectual property (IP) rights.
Tashera Simmons, who was married to the legendary rapper (Earl Simmons) for 16 years, sued his estate last year, claiming she was the rightful owner of half of his copyrights, trademarks and likeness rights. But in a ruling Monday (April 7), a New York judge said otherwise.

“The estate is the sole owner of all intellectual property rights [that] Earl Simmons acquired during his marriage to plaintiff, as well as any and all other trademarks and intellectual property rights that belonged to Earl Simmons at the time of his death,” Judge David F. Everett wrote.

Trending on Billboard

The dispute centers on the couple’s 2016 divorce agreement, which mentioned “intellectual property” but didn’t expressly state that Tashera was a co-owner of the copyrights and trademarks. Before his death, DMX insisted the deal only granted her royalty payments — an argument his estate has maintained in the years since his death.

In Monday’s decision, Judge Everett not only ruled that the divorce settlement “does not confer ownership,” but that Tashera had essentially waived the right to make that claim. The judge cited the fact that she had raised the issue in previous litigation and had then signed a settlement that made no mention of sharing ownership.

“Under the circumstances of this case, the court will not, in effect, reopen those proceedings to reinterpret the parties’ 2016 settlement agreement, particularly where the party best positioned to contest a contrary interpretation is now deceased,” the judge wrote.

DMX, one of the most influential stars in hip-hop history, was married to Tashera through his turn-of-the-century heyday, as he released Billboard Hot 100 hits like “Ruff Ryders’ Anthem,” “Party Up (Up In Here)” and “What These Bitches Want.” The pair, who share four children, filed for divorce in 2013 and finalized the split in 2016. After years of health issues, DMX died in April 2021 following a drug overdose and subsequent heart attack.

Tashera sued last year, claiming that the estate’s administrators (DMX’s ex-fiancée Desiree Lindstrom and his daughter by another woman, Sasha Simmons) were improperly disputing her ownership stake. She cited a handwritten excerpt from the divorce settlement, which said she would get half of IP rights, followed by: “which shall include, but not be limited to, royalties.”

But in Monday’s decision, Judge Everett said that language “does not unequivocally assign ownership of decedent’s copyrighted works or trademark and, indeed, makes no mention of ownership or title to such property.”

“Instead, plaintiff proffers an interpretation of the phrase ‘intellectual property rights’ to include ownership, but had that phrase meant ownership, then there would be no need to define those rights further in the subsequent clause, all tellingly limited to various categories of royalty payments.”

The judge did side with Tashera on one smaller issue by refusing to dismiss her accusations that DMX had breached the divorce agreement by failing to pay $214,000 in child support. That issue is factually disputed by both sides, the judge said, meaning dismissing it would be “premature.”

Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Wednesday (April 9).