State Champ Radio

by DJ Frosty

Current track

Title

Artist

Current show
blank

State Champ Radio Mix

1:00 pm 7:00 pm

Current show
blank

State Champ Radio Mix

1:00 pm 7:00 pm


Legal

Page: 38

Madonna is firing back at a class action lawsuit filed by New York City fans who are angry that her concerts started later than scheduled, arguing that needing to “get up early to go to work” the next day is not the kind of legal “injury” someone can sue over.
In a motion filed Wednesday, the Material Girl’s lawyers urged a federal judge to dismiss the case, in which ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden accused her of breaking the law by starting three December shows in Brooklyn more than two hours later than the scheduled.

That lawsuit made headlines because the plaintiffs justified their claims in part by arguing that they “had to get up early to go to work” the next day. But in their response, Madonna’s lawyers said that’s hardly the kind of legal “injury” that can result in a lawsuit.

Trending on Billboard

“Plaintiffs speculate that ticketholders who left the venue after 1 a.m. might have had trouble getting a ride home or might have needed to wake up early the next day for work,” wrote Madonna’s lawyers. “That is not a cognizable injury.”

Far from suffering harm, Madonna’s lawyers say Hadden “raved” about the show in question on social media, posting that the concert was “incredible, as always!” on his Facebook page. “In other words, the concert met or exceeded his expectations.”

An attorney for the defendants did not immediately return a request for comment.

Fellows and Hadden filed their case in January, claiming Madonna and concert giant Live Nation breached contracts with buyers and violated state laws covering false advertising and unfair business practices by starting the shows late. The case, a proposed class action, aims to represent thousands of others who allegedly faced a similar experience.

At issue are three concerts at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, stops on Madonna’s Celebration Tour, that had originally been scheduled for July but were shifted to December due to the singer’s illness. Fellows and Hadden said they expected their show to start on time, and “would not have paid for their tickets had they known that the concerts would start after 10:30 p.m.”

“Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that the concerts would start much later than the start time printed on the ticket and as advertised,” attorneys for the two men wrote.

But in Wednesday’s response, attorneys representing both Madonna and Live Nation said that anyone buying a concert ticket is well aware that the show likely won’t start at the exact time printed on the ticket.

“Nowhere did Defendants advertise that Madonna would take the stage at 8.30 p.m., and no reasonable concertgoer—and certainly no Madonna fan—would expect the headline act at a major arena concert to take the stage at the ticketed event time,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “Rather, a reasonable concertgoer would understand that the venue’s doors will open at or before the ticketed time, one or more opening acts may perform while attendees arrive and make their way to their seats and before the headline act takes the stage, and the headline act will take the stage later in the evening.”

Rather than suffering harm, they say Fellows and Hadden “got just what they paid for: a full-length, high-quality show by the Queen of Pop.”

“Plaintiffs do not allege Madonna’s performance was subpar, that her performance was worth less than what they paid, or that they left the concert before watching her entire performance,” her lawyers wrote. “Indeed, plaintiffs do not plead any injury that they themselves suffered by spending the night at an ‘incredible’ concert.”

Rod Wave was arrested on two counts of illegal possession of a weapon or ammo in Manatee County, Florida on Wednesday (April 3), according to arrest records viewed by Billboard.
The St. Petersburg Police Department hosted a press conference in the aftermath of the arrest alleging that Rod — born Rodarius Marcell Green — was connected to a gang-related shooting in Florida that left four bystanders injured outside of Sonic Sports Bar in St. Petersburg.

St. Petersburg Police Chief Mike Kovacsev explained that three of the apprehended assailants (Christopher Atkins, Keith Westby and Kevontre Wesby) are allegedly connected to the Young Gangsters gang and that two more are in the process of being arrested after law enforcement discovered 60 shell casings of ammo at the site of the shooting, which occurred on Sunday night (March 31).

Trending on Billboard

Kovacsev claimed that the getaway vehicle used in the shooting was registered to Rod and that the Palm Avenue residence the group fled to was also allegedly registered to the “Heart On Ice” singer.

“The vehicle they fled in was registered to [Green],” Kovacsev said. “They also fled back to a residence at 500 Palm Avenue North … That residence was rented by [Green] as well. We executed a search warrant at that location on Monday night and we recovered two assault rifles, two pounds of marijuana and a great deal of evidence we’re going to utilize the case going forward.”

Police determined that “another residence” was rented by Rod in Palm Meadow and shifted the focus to that location, where they executed a search warrant. Subjects leaving that residence were arrested on weapons charges by undercover detectives and the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office.

“We are hopeful and anticipate potentially other evidence to be taken out of the vehicles as we do search warrants over the next couple of days,” Kovacsev added. “We went and had the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office execute that warrant and we located a number of other assault rifles and a handgun inside that residence.”

The police chief said that along with the firearms, money and jewelry were also seized. More charges are also possibly looming related to the shooting and narcotics.

Rod’s weapon possession charges listed him as a convicted felon, which his attorney, Bradford Cohen, vehemently denies. Cohen also denies Wave’s connection to the shooting.

“[Rod] has nothing to do with a shooting,” Cohen tells Billboard. “There was nothing found in his car and he is not a convicted felon.”

Cohen and another of Rod’s attorneys, Mark Rankin, released a joint statement on Cohen’s Instagram claiming that the judge agreed that the evidence didn’t support the charges and that the Florida singer was set free on Wednesday.

“Rod was arrested and detained with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing,” Cohen captioned the Instagram post featuring a photo of Rod. “The police claimed he was a felon in possession of ammunition. Not only was he not in possession of ammunition, a basic check of public records would have easily demonstrated to the police that he was not a convicted felon. The prosecutor and the judge immediately agreed that the evidence did not support the charge and set him free the same day.”

Rod was previously arrested in his hometown of St. Petersburg in May 2022 on a felony charge of battery by strangulation, which was dropped weeks later. That arrest stemmed from an April 2022 incident involving Wave and his ex-girlfriend, who alleged that the singer entered her home and choked her, according to the arrest warrant.

Billboard has reached out to the St. Petersburg Police Department for additional information.

This is a developing story.

Joey Ramone‘s brother is fighting back against a lawsuit filed by Johnny Ramone’s widow over a planned Netflix movie about the pioneering punk band, calling the case “baseless and flimsy” and filing his own countersuit against her.
Johnny’s wife (Linda Cummings-Ramone) sued Joey’s brother (Mitchel Hyman, better known as Mickey Leigh) in January over allegations that he had “covertly” developed an “unauthorized” biopic, believed to be Netflix’s announced moving starring Pete Davidson as Joey. In the lawsuit, Linda said that any “authoritative story of the Ramones” would require her sign-off.

But in a sharply-worded response filed last month, Mickey’s attorneys argued that Linda had, in fact, already greenlit such a movie many years ago – and that her “baseless” lawsuit was simply one more step in a years-long plan to “install herself as the Queen of the Ramones.”

Trending on Billboard

“Ms. Cummings-Ramone’s main purpose is to embarrass, harass, and destroy the integrity of Mr. Hyman, create an utterly false narrative about him, rewrite her role in the history of the Ramones, and win a popularity contest in which, in her mind, she takes over … the legacy of a band of which she never was a member and had nothing to do with creatively,” Mickey’s lawyers wrote in the March 15 filing.

A representative for Linda did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.

Joey (real name Jeffrey Ross Hyman) and Johnny (real name John William Cummings) were not actually brothers, and they had a notoriously chilly relationship during their decades as bandmates. In the years since the two passed away, that feud has seemingly continued between Mickey and Linda.

As the executors of Joey and Johnny’s respective estates, Mickey and Linda each own half of Ramones Productions Inc., the holding company that controls the band’s music and other assets. But that partnership has not gone smoothly, featuring multiple lawsuits and arbitrations over the past decade.

The latest legal scuffle was triggered in part by the plans for a movie version of I Slept With Joey Ramone, Mickey’s 2009 memoir, which Netflix announced in April 2021. In her January lawsuit, Linda said that such a project would need the sign-off of Ramones Productions and not just Joey’s estate.

“Ms. Ramone objects to defendants’ attempt to create a Ramones film without her involvement — not to be obstinate, but rather based on defendants’ disregard for [Ramones] assets and their conduct and treatment of Ms. Ramone and her late husband,” Linda’s attorneys wrote at the time. “To permit defendants alone to tell the authoritative story of the Ramones would be an injustice to the band and its legacy.”

But in his recent response, Mickey argued that the planned movie is about him and his brother, and is “not intended to be a ‘Ramones movie’ or a Ramones biopic.” And he pointed to a 2006 agreement in which he argued that Linda had already granted her approval to a film based on the I Slept With Joey Ramone book: “Ms. Cummings-Ramone did consent to Defendants’ development and production of a motion picture,” Mickey’s lawyers wrote.

In a copy of the alleged agreement filed in court, Ramones Productions granted approval to a company called Rosegarten Films to produce a movie based on the then-unpublished memoir. It’s unclear if that specific company is involved in the currently-planned film, but television and film producer Rory Rosegarten was listed an executive producer when Netflix announced the movie in 2021.

In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, Mickey echoed his argument that the movie was not going to be about the Ramones as a band.

“The fact is, I did not write ‘I Slept With Joey Ramone: A Punk Rock Family Memoir’ about my brother’s band and had no intention whatsoever of doing that,” he said. “I wrote a story about growing up with a big brother who endured a severe somatic malady at birth, and later developed neurogenic problems. That led to doctors making diagnoses that he would never be able to function on his own in society — and that big brother, with support from his family, proved those doctors wrong as he went on to do great things with his life and become an inspiration to millions.”

The recent court filings came as part of Mickey’s so-called answer to the Linda’s lawsuit, denying the many accusations leveled against him in her lawsuit. Along with it, he filed his own counterclaims against her, arguing that it was Linda who had actually breached their partnership agreement with a “pattern of egregious conduct.”

The counterclaims set the stage for potentially years of litigation over Linda and Mickey’s back-and-forth accusations. Just like Linda’s original lawsuit, Mickey’s new case covers a wide range of alleged wrongdoing in their joint management of the Ramones assets well beyond just the proposed movie.

“She is driven by an alternate agenda, including her own fame and vanity, as well as a self-serving desire to obstruct projects and control RPI for reasons which conflict with her fiduciary duties and cause her to avoid any modicum of cooperation with Mr. Hyman,” Mickey’s lawyers wrote.

Kanye West is facing another lawsuit filed by a former employee at his Donda Academy, this time accusing him of discriminating against Black staffers and seeking to lock students in cages.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (April 2) in Los Angeles court, Trevor Phillips says the embattled rapper (who now goes by Ye) treated the Black staff at the school “considerably worse than white employees” — and then subjected him to “incessant harassment” and “humiliation” when he spoke up about it.

Like the several other lawsuits filed by former Donda Academy employees, the new complaint includes a number of bizarre allegations about West and his conduct at the school. It claims he told students  to “shave their heads” and that he “intended to put a jail at the school” where students could be “locked in cages.”

Trending on Billboard

In another odd alleged episode, Phillips claims West summoned him to a room at the Nobu Hotel, where the rapper put on The Batman and watched it in silence.

“After a long and awkward silence, Kanye finally spoke again,” Phillips claims in the suit. “Turning his attention back to Phillips, he began an unprovoked and bigoted rant attacking Jewish people.” Later that same evening, Phillips claims West lay on the bed and simulated masturbating while talking about having orgies.

Phillips claims he was finally fired last year.

The case is the latest lawsuit filed by former staffers of Donda Academy and the Yeezy Christian Academy that preceded it. One of them, filed in July, claimed that the school lacked windows because the embattled rapper “did not like glass” and that students were not allowed on the second floor because West was “reportedly afraid of stairs.” Another case, filed in April 2023, alleged that the only food available to students was sushi.

As with those earlier cases, the strange allegations contained in Tuesday’s lawsuit supported more straightforward legal claims, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination.

A spokesperson for West did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.

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: Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo battle over the rights to the name of their Neptunes producing partnership; UMG and Lucian Grainge hit back at “offensively false” accusations linking them to Diddy’s alleged abuse; Sony wins nearly $1 million in damages from a TikTok rapper over an uncleared sample; and much more.

THE BIG STORY: Pharrell and Chad Hugo Battle Over ‘Neptunes’

You might not have heard of The Neptunes, but if you were alive during the early 2000s, you’ve certainly heard a Neptunes song.

Trending on Billboard

The prolific producing partnership, comprised of Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo, was responsible for countless earworms from that era: Nelly’s “Hot in Herre,” Snoop Dogg’s “Drop It Like It’s Hot,” Gwen Stefani’s “Hollaback Girl,” Justin Timberlake’s “Rock Your Body,” Britney Spears’ “I’m a Slave 4 U” and many, many others.

But 20 years on, something is rotten in the state of Neptune.

In a legal action filed last week, attorneys for Hugo accused Pharrell and his company of attempting to unilaterally register trademarks for the Neptunes name – a move they say violates their longstanding agreement that saw the pair split everything equally: “By ignoring and excluding [Hugo] from the any and all applications filed by applicant for the mark ‘The Neptunes,’ applicant has committed fraud in securing the trademarks and acted in bad faith.”

Go read our entire story on the dispute here, including a response from Pharrell.

Other top stories this week…

TOP MUSIC LAWYERS – Billboard revealed its 2024 list of Top Music Lawyers, featuring the best legal minds — both in-house and at law firms — who propel the industry forward by negotiating deals, litigating disputes and shaping policy. At the top of this year’s list was Christine Lepera, a go-to music litigator who has represented Katy Perry, Drake, Jay-Z, Post Malone and many others in high profile cases. This past year, Lepera beat back a copyright lawsuit against Dua Lipa over “Levitating,” and won a key decision for Daryl Hall in his messy dispute with John Oates.

“OFFENSIVELY FALSE” – Attorneys for Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge fired back at a lawsuit that claims he and the label “aided and abetted” Sean “Diddy” Combs in his alleged sexual abuse, arguing that the accusations are so “offensively false” that they plan to seek legal penalties against the lawyer who filed them. “A license to practice law is a privilege,” Grainge’s attorney Donald Zakarin wrote. “Plaintiff’s lawyer has misused that license…”

TIKTOK RAPPER PAYS THE PRICE – A federal judge ruled that Trefeugo, a rapper popular on TikTok, must pay Sony Music more than $800,000 in damages for using a copyrighted sample without permission in his “90mh” — a track that Sony claimed was streamed 100 million times on Spotify. “The court hopes this case will serve as a $802,997.23 lesson for defendant in carefully selecting the materials included in his raps.”

ASTROWORLD UPDATE – With a trial looming next month, Travis Scott asked to be dismissed from the sprawling litigation over the 2021 disaster at the Astroworld music festival. Attorneys for the star (led by Dan Petrocelli) argued that safety and security at live events is “not the job of performing artists” – even in the case of someone like Scott, who conceptualized and heavily promoted the event the festival with his own branding.

LINKIN PARK SETTLEMENT – The band’s members reached a settlement to end a lawsuit that accused them of refusing to pay royalties to Kyle Christner, an ex-bassist who briefly played with the band in the late 1990s before they hit it big. In a statement, Linkin Park said it had reached an “amicable resolution” and acknowledged that Christner made “valuable contributions” at a “pivotal time.”

JAMES DOLAN ABUSE CASE – Attorneys for Madison Square Garden executive James Dolan fired back at a lawsuit that alleges he pressured a masseuse into unwanted sex while his band was touring with the Eagles, calling his accuser an “opportunist” who is “looking for a quick payday” over “completely manufactured” allegations.

Just days after Lizzo shared an emotional “I quit” statement to Instagram, Los Angeles-based attorney Ron Zambrano, who is representing the dancers that are suing the “About Damn Time” singer for harassment, has shared a scolding statement in response.

Explore

Explore

See latest videos, charts and news

See latest videos, charts and news

“It’s a joke that Lizzo would say she is being bullied by the internet when she should instead be taking an honest look at herself,” he wrote in the statement obtained by Billboard. “Her latest post is just another outburst seeking attention and trying to deflect from her own failings as she continues to blame everyone else for the predicament she is in. Lizzo’s legal and public relations strategy is a failure, so she is desperately trying to play the victim. She has thrown these childish tantrums before. No one actually believes she is quitting music. But she should quit sexually harassing, shaming and bullying her employees and finally accept responsibility for her actions.”

Zambrano’s statement continued, “She can make all of this go away simply by seizing the opportunity here to set an example, own up to her mistakes, pay what’s due to those she’s wronged and work on becoming a better person. Celebrity toxicity is poisoning the entertainment industry with Diddy and Dan Schneider being the latest examples, and Lizzo’s conduct will not be tolerated, either. There is no more safe place in society for this sort of behavior as the entire industry is in for a reckoning for permitting such vile treatment of employees in the workplace.”

Trending on Billboard

Billboard has reached out for Lizzo’s team for a response to Zambrano’s statement.

On Friday afternoon (March 29), Lizzo took to Instagram to express frustration over public criticism toward her. “I’m getting tired of putting up with being dragged by everyone in my life and on the Internet,” she wrote against an orange and yellow background. “All I want is to make music and make people happy and help the world be a little better than how I found it. But I’m starting to feel like the world doesn’t want me in it.”

The singer continued, She continued, “I’m constantly up against lies being told about me for clout & views… being the butt of the joke every single time because of how I look… my character being picked apart by people who don’t know me and disrespecting my name. I didn’t sign up for this s— — I QUIT [peace out emoji].”

Lizzo has been under scrutiny over the past year, as she’s been involved in a harassment lawsuit brought by three of the “Special” singer’s former dancers in August 2023. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accuses Lizzo (real name Melissa Jefferson) and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of a wide range of legal wrongdoing and included dozens of pages of detailed allegations. Lizzo denied the claims in a response shared to Twitter, calling them “false allegations” and “sensationalized stories.”

Linkin Park has reached a settlement to end a lawsuit that accused the band of refusing to pay royalties to an ex-bassist who briefly played with the band in the late 1990s.
In a statement issued on Friday, the band said it had reached an “amicable resolution” with Kyle Christner, who sued the band last year over claims that he had “never been paid a penny” for contributions he made during several months he was in Linkin Parkin 1999.

The dispute was sparked by an anniversary re-release of Linkin Park’s smash hit 2000 debut album Hybrid Theory, which holds the distinction as the best-selling rock album of the 21st century. Christner claimed he had contributed some of the material released on the anniversary box set – a claim confirmed by the band in Friday’s statement.

Trending on Billboard

“Kyle is a very talented musician who made valuable contributions to Linkin Park at a pivotal time in 1999,” Linkin Park wrote in Friday’s statement. “He performed with the band in several shows and many record label showcases. Kyle helped write and performed on many songs from that era, including some of the songs on the Hybrid Theory EP.”

The statement was accompanied by a joint filing in court seeking to formally end the lawsuit, signed by attorneys for both Christner and for Mike Shinoda and other Linkin Park members. Christner’s attorneys did not return a request for comment on Monday.

Christner sued in November, claiming he had been a member of the band for several months in 1999 until he was “abruptly informed” that he had been fired shortly before the band signed a record deal with Warner Records. He accused the band of continuing to profit from songs he helped create, while effectively erasing his involvement.

“Christner has never been paid a penny for his work with Linkin Park, nor has he been properly credited, even as defendants have benefitted from his creative efforts,” his lawyers wrote at the time.

In addition to Shinoda, the lawsuit also named Linkin Park’s other living members (Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson and Joseph Hahn), as well as its business entity, Machine Shop Entertainment, and the band’s label, Warner Records.

In particular, Christener pointed to the re-release of Hybrid Theory. He argued that the special 2020 box set included several songs to which he had contributed, including a never-before-released demo track that has amassed 949,000 views on YouTube.

Before Friday’s settlement, Linkin Park had been battling to dismiss the case. In a filing last month, the band argued that the case had been filed far too late and that the statute of limitations on such claims had “long since passed.”

“Defendants repudiated plaintiff’s purported ownership in any and all of the works mentioned in the [lawsuit] more than three years before plaintiff filed this lawsuit — and indeed for over two decades,” the band’s lawyers wrote at the time.

Pharrell Williams and producer Chad Hugo – who together formed the prolific songwriting duo The Neptunes – are now battling each other in a legal dispute over the group’s name, after Hugo accused Williams of “fraudulently” seeking sole control over the trademarks.
Before Williams was a solo star, The Neptunes produced a slew of radio hits in the early 2000s, including Nelly’s “Hot in Herre,” Snoop Dogg’s “Drop It Like It’s Hot,” Gwen Stefani’s “Hollaback Girl” and Justin Timberlake’s “Rock Your Body.” The legendary duo, who have been friends since childhood, were inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2022.

But in a legal action filed last week at a federal tribunal, attorneys for Hugo accused Pharrell and his company of attempting to unilaterally register trademarks for the Neptunes name – a move they say violates their longstanding agreement that saw the pair split everything equally.

Trending on Billboard

“Throughout their over thirty year history, [Hugo] and Williams agreed to, and in fact, have divided all assets,” wrote Hugo’s attorney Kenneth D. Freundlich, a prominent music industry litigator. “By ignoring and excluding [Hugo] from the any and all applications filed by applicant for the mark ‘The Neptunes,’ applicant has committed fraud in securing the trademarks and acted in bad faith.”

In a statement to Billboard on Monday, a rep for Pharrell said there had been no ill-intent behind the disputed trademark filings: “Pharrell is surprised by this. We have reached out on multiple occasions to share in the ownership and administration of the trademark and will continue to make that offer. The goal here was to make sure a third party doesn’t get a hold of the trademark and to guarantee Chad and Pharrell share in ownership and administration.”

Hugo’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.

At issue in the dispute are three separate applications to register “The Neptunes” as a trademark – one covering the use of the name on streaming music, another for music videos and other content, and a third covering live performances. They were filed in 2022 by PW IP Holdings LLC, Pharrell’s company that also owns such registrations for his band N.E.R.D., his Miami-based Goodtime Hotel, and numerous other brand names connected to the superstar.

In his legal filings last week, Hugo’s attorneys argued that Pharrell had “knowingly and intentionally” filed those applications without required input from Hugo, even though he was “fully aware” that either Hugo or their partnership entity should have been listed as a co-owner: “Nothing, either written or oral, provided Williams or [PW IP Holdings] with the unilateral authority to register the trademarks.”

Hugo’s attorneys said they’ve “repeatedly” contacted Pharrell’s team about the problem, and that the star’s lawyers had “admitted that [Hugo] is equal co-owner of the trademarks” and promised to include him — a claim that lines up with Williams’ statement on Monday.

But the case claims that sharing never actually happened, partly because Pharrell’s company has insisted on “onerous business terms” that would deprive Hugo of proper control and compensation. The petition did not specify what exactly those “onerous” terms included.

Last week’s filings targeted only with the three recent trademark applications, but Hugo’s case could potentially expand beyond them. That’s because Pharrell’s company already successfully registered The Neptunes name as a trademark for musical sound recordings, and has another pending application to register the name for clothing and other merch.

In his filing last week, Hugo’s lawyers said that the trademark registrations covering sound recordings “and possibly others” would be subject to a future legal action aimed at having them voided.

Christine Lepera might be one of the country’s top music litigators, but decades ago, she wasn’t even sure she still wanted to be a lawyer at all.
In 1986, just a few years after she graduated law school, she was working at a New York firm where she was “dissatisfied” and, like many young attorneys, faced existential questions about her chosen career path.

“I never intended to be a music lawyer, and after four years at a corporate firm on Wall Street, I was basically ready to quit the law entirely,” she recalls with a laugh.

Today, that’s hard to imagine. Lepera — who is chair of the music litigation group at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp (MSK) — for years has been one of the music industry’s go-to trial lawyers.

Trending on Billboard

She handles many different types of cases, from representing Daryl Hall in last year’s headline-grabbing battle with longtime partner John Oates that’s still pending to Dr. Luke in his just-settled defamation case against Kesha. But her primary specialty is defending superstar artists against allegations that they’ve stolen their songs from someone else.

Over the past year, Lepera has handled such copyright cases for Dua Lipa, Jay-Z, Post Malone and others; previously, she has done similar work for Katy Perry, Ye (formerly known as Kanye West), Drake, Ludacris and many more. For Lepera, who herself plays piano, working those lawsuits is not just about the people involved, but about their music — and their right to create without facing needless lawsuits.

“What I get the most enjoyment from is servicing the music,” Lepera says. “In many of these cases, what you’re dealing with is people who have not stolen anything and have just used basic musical building blocks. And the other side is literally trying to monopolize music that they shouldn’t.”

In recognition of her achievements, Lepera has been named Billboard’s 2024 Lawyer of the Year. Fellow partners Eric German, Bradley Mullins and David Steinberg join her on the Top Music Lawyers list.

Facing an impasse in her young career, Lepera turned to Martin Silfen — her former law professor at New York Law School and a music attorney who represented clients like Blondie, LL COOL J and Aerosmith — for advice. Silfen connected her with Leonard Marks, a legendary New York music attorney who counted Billy Joel, The Beatles and Elton John as clients over his long career.

The timing was just right. At that point, Marks was getting plenty of litigation business sent his way from John Eastman, another powerful industry attorney who is best known for representing Paul McCartney in his wranglings with the other members of The Beatles (prompted by their association with manager Allen Klein). The late Marks, whom Lepera fondly recalls as an eccentric attorney with you-can’t-believe-he’s-a-lawyer vibes, brought her into his small firm and gave her a shot.

“Len hired me, I started doing lots of entertainment cases and everything changed,” Lepera says.

From left: Attorneys Christopher Buccafusco, Christine Lepera and Carla Miller discussed how copyright law affects creators at a 2019 panel at Cardozo Law School in New York.

Rob Kim/Getty Images

One of the first major cases she handled was a copyright lawsuit filed in 1990 against Broadway composer Andrew Lloyd Webber that accused him of stealing the title song from his smash hit The Phantom of the Opera from a Baltimore liturgical composer. The case dragged on for years, featuring countersuits, multiple appeals and an attempted appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court before ending in the late 1990s with a victory for Lloyd Webber in a high-profile jury trial.

The long-running lawsuit provided plenty of material for the young music litigator to cut her teeth. “It was a 10-year extravaganza,” Lepera says, laughing. “And we won everything at the end of the day.”

In the years that followed, big music cases kept coming. In 2006, Lepera won a jury verdict clearing Ye and Ludacris of allegations that they had based their 2003 Billboard Hot 100 No. 1 hit, “Stand Up,” on an earlier song. In 2015, she helped defeat a lawsuit claiming that Jay-Z and Timbaland had stolen material from an Egyptian composer for their 2000 smash “Big Pimpin’.” In 2017, Lepera won a ruling that Drake had made fair use of a spoken-word jazz track when he sampled it on his 2013 song “Pound Cake.”

The attorney’s trajectory culminated in 2022, when she won a federal appeals court decision that Perry’s 2013 single “Dark Horse,” another Hot 100 No. 1, had not infringed the copyright of an earlier song. It was not only a big win for the singer, overturning millions in damages, but also set an important legal precedent that individual songwriters cannot lock up simple musical “building blocks.”

For years, such lawsuits have been a source of anxiety for creators and companies alike, particularly in the wake of the controversial 2015 verdict that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams’ “Blurred Lines” had infringed Marvin Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up.” In the years that followed, artists became more cautious about vetting their songs with musicologists, often preemptively offering writing credits to would-be accusers rather than risking a lawsuit.

But from Lepera’s perspective, song-theft lawsuits didn’t increase after the “Blurred Lines” verdict; rather, they’ve always just been an unfortunate byproduct of success. “You write a hit, you get a writ,” she jokes. In fact, she suggests the verdict had a positive impact: More artists are willing to fight back against questionable allegations and more courts are willing to scrutinize bad lawsuits.

“They’re going to fight and not give into this fear,” Lepera says of her clients and other modern artists. “Even though it’s a very draining, expensive, uncomfortable and uncertain process, I think we’re seeing very strong advocates turning around and deterring these kinds of cases.”

In the past year, Lepera fought battles inside and outside the copyright sector. She represented Lipa in two high-profile lawsuits that claimed the star had copied earlier songs when she wrote her megahit “Levitating.” In June, a federal judge dismissed one of them, agreeing with Lipa’s argument that she had never heard the song in question; the other case, where Lepera has made the same argument, is awaiting a decision. Lepera also won a ruling in September dismissing a lawsuit against Jay-Z, Timbaland and Ginuwine that claimed they had lifted material from an old soul tune for the songs “Paper Chase” and “Toe 2 Toe.”

Perhaps more notably, Lepera resolved the decadelong litigation by Dr. Luke against Kesha, in which her client claimed the pop star had defamed him when she accused him of rape in 2014. After years of litigation and appeals, a trial was set for July 2023; instead, a confidential settlement was reached in June. As part of the agreement, the two issued a joint statement in which Kesha said she “cannot recount everything that happened” while Dr. Luke maintained that he was “absolutely certain that nothing happened.”

The Dr. Luke v. Kesha case, which started years before the #MeToo movement and was heavily litigated throughout that period, sparked strong emotions on both sides and sometimes thrust Lepera herself into the spotlight. In deposition videos made public in 2019, Lady Gaga told her, “You should be ashamed of yourself.”

When facing such situations as an attorney, Lepera says she sticks to the “facts and the law” of a given legal argument and is not intimidated by the celebrities involved or the PR dimensions that can accompany it.

“I can’t advocate a position unless I believe in it,” she says. “I have to truly believe in whatever it is I’m arguing. I’m not really emotional. I don’t have that trepidation of ‘Oh, look who I’m representing.’ ”

Another major 2023 case for Lepera was the public breakup of beloved duo Hall & Oates, in which she served as Hall’s lead counsel. In the dispute, which attracted heavy media attention thanks to sealed filings later becoming public, Hall accused Oates of violating their partnership agreement by unilaterally attempting to sell part of their joint entity to Primary Wave, a prominent music company that has acquired many catalogs in recent years.

As the case unfolded, it became clear the matter was deeply personal for Hall, who in legal filings called the alleged sale by Oates the “ultimate partnership betrayal” and said it specifically had been designed to hurt him after years of worsening relations between the duo. Oates later responded by calling the accusations “inflammatory, outlandish and inaccurate” and saying that they had left him “deeply hurt.”

In late November, after a climactic court hearing in Nashville, a judge sided with Hall and Lepera, putting the Primary Wave deal on hold and allowing an arbitrator time to decide Hall’s arguments against it. The dispute remains pending.

Due to the massive media attention, Lepera says the case has been “very painful, obviously, for both of them.” Bands, she says, are “almost like family,” and when things “fall apart at the seams” after a long career, there are bound to be intense feelings for all involved. After decades of handling such cases, she says the job of a good litigator is to understand and absorb that human dynamic, but also to channel it into a winning legal argument.

“My challenge is to be there to absorb and listen to that,” Lepera says, “but also to just cut through and get to the result that’s needed.”

This story originally appeared in the March 30, 2024, issue of Billboard.

After nearly 1,000 votes cast over three rounds of voting, Billboard Pro members selected Dina LaPolt, founder and owner of LaPolt Law, for the 2024 Top Music Lawyers Power Players’ Choice Award, which honors the attorney they believe had the most impact across the industry in the past year. With multiple industry roles — on […]