Legal
Page: 50
A man accused of stalking Taylor Swift outside her Manhattan apartment has been declared mentally unfit for trial, prosecutors say, meaning his criminal charges will be dismissed and he will be transferred to a mental health facility.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office said Friday it had confirmed the results of a psychiatric examination that found David Crowe “unfit to stand trial” on misdemeanor charges of stalking, harassment and contempt. Crowe was arrested three times last month outside Swift’s TriBeCa building.
“The criminal case is now dismissed by function of law,” a spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office said in the statement. “He will now be committed to the custody of the Office of Mental Health to receive necessary treatment.”
In a statement, Crowe’s public defender, Katherine LeGeros Bajuk, said: “We are pleased that all parties now agree to the obvious truth that Mr. Crowe is too ill to proceed, and that he requires treatment, not jail. We look forward to ensuring Mr. Crowe is provided with the psychiatric treatment and supportive social services he needs to achieve a successful and stable re-entry into society.”
Though he will not face charges, Crowe will not simply be released. He will committed to a mental health treatment facility, where he will be confined for an undefined time period until deemed fit to be released by doctors. Prosecutors can argue against any potential future release, and often seek civil court protection orders barring defendants like Crowe from contacting victims like Swift after they’re released.
In charging documents, prosecutors alleged that Crowe had been spotted roughly 30 times near Swift’s apartment building since late November, and that on multiple occasions he had stated that he was there to speak to the superstar.
The Seattle native was first arrested on January 20, after police responded to a 911 call regarding a “disorderly person” near Swift’s apartment. Crowe had allegedly “attempted to open a door to a building at the location” and was taken into custody on a previous arrest warrant. After he was released, Crowe was arrested again just two days later in the same area, after witnesses reported an “emotionally disturbed male acting erratically” and police spotted him “harassing multiple complainants.”
Crowe was released from custody again on Jan. 24 after he was arraigned on stalking and harassment charges. Though the judge imposed a strict protection order, Crowe then apparently bee-lined back to the vicinity of Swift’s apartment, where he was arrested for a third time and charged with criminal contempt.
After Crowe’s third arrest, prosecutors warned the judge that he had willfully disobeyed her previous ruling and made clear that he would not abide by future restrictions. Following that hearing, the judge ordered Crowe to remain in custody while he awaited further proceedings.
If he had gone to trial on the original stalking charges — all misdemeanors — Crowe could have faced up to 18 months in prison if convicted. If also convicted on the later charges — two counts of second-degree criminal contempt for breaching his protection order, also misdemeanors — he could have faced an additional two years in prison.
Chuy Montana, an emerging star in the booming corridos scene, was found dead in Mexico on Wednesday (Feb. 7).
His body was discovered along the highway connecting Rosarito to Tijuana. According to The San Diego Tribune, Fernando Sánchez, Mexico’s Secretary of Security and Citizen Protection, told local outlets that Cárdenas’s body bore multiple gunshots and was found handcuffed; law enforcement believes that he had been kidnapped prior to death.
Billboard has reached out to Tijuana police.
The Tijuana native, whose real name is Jesús Cárdenas, was part of the music roster at Street Mob Records, a label spearheaded by Jesús Ortiz Paz (JOP), the lead vocalist of Fuerza Regida.
“On behalf of Street Mob Records, we deeply regret the passing of our colleague and brother Chuy Montana,” wrote the label in an Instagram post Thursday. “We stand in solidarity with his family during this time of grief. We kindly request understanding and respect from the media at this difficult moment.”
The label and its artists have contributed significantly to the corridos tumbados and belikeada movement, subgenres of regional Mexican music that have gained notoriety in recent years. Montana’s career was marked by a significant online presence, boasting 816,000 monthly listens on Spotify. He often performed with his guitar for audiences in traffic lines at the Tijuana-San Ysidro border crossing point, where he was discovered by JOP.
[embedded content]
According to Punto Norte, a newspaper in Mexico, investigators believe that Montana may have attempted to escape his captors, leading to a chase and eventual fatal shooting. Responding officers found shell casings at the scene, according to the publication; Montana had gunshot wounds to his head and arms.
Montana’s music, particularly his 2023 single “Porte de Scarface,” had enjoyed success, amassing more than 22 million plays on Spotify. His collaboration with Fuerza Regida, “Polvos de Chanel,” also highlighted his rising status in the music industry.
The artist’s death has also raised concerns over the safety of artists in genres associated with contentious themes.
In October 2023, Fuerza Regida was threatened with death by means of a narco banner left in Tijuana. Following the appearance of the threat, the San Bernardino group canceled its concert at the Estadio Caliente in Tijuana, as did Peso Pluma weeks earlier, after having received the same death threat on a tarpaulin signed with the initials CJNG, alluding to the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación.
[embedded content]
Tijuana has taken steps to address the glorification of violence in music by banning narcocorridos in public performances, a measure reasserted by Mayor Montserrat Caballero in light of recent events.
The death of Chuy Montana adds to the ongoing trend of violence against artists in the corridos and narcocorridos genres that dates back to Chalino Sánchez’s murder in 1992. Other stars who have fallen victim to violence in the genres include Valentín Elizalde, Ariel Camacho, Zayda Peña, Sergio Gómez, Javier Reyes “El Príncipe del Corrido,” and more.
Snoop Dogg and Master P are suing Walmart and Post Consumer Brands over allegations that the two huge companies sabotaged the rappers’ cereal brand with “underhanded dealing” and “diabolical actions.”
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Feb. 6), the rappers’ company, Broadus Foods, claimed that after they struck a partnership deal with Post, the company secretly “ensured that Snoop Cereal would not be available to consumers” or would “incur exorbitant costs that would eliminate any profit.”
Broadus Foods, represented by prominent attorney Benjamin Crump, claims the move was payback after Snoop (Calvin Broadus) and Master P (Percy Miller) refused to sell their company to Post.
“Essentially, because Snoop Dogg and Master refused to sell Snoop Cereal in totality, Post entered [a] false arrangement where they could choke Broadus Foods out of the market, thereby preventing Snoop Cereal from being sold or produced by any competitor,” Crump wrote in Tuesday’s complaint.
The lawsuit also named Walmart as a defendant, saying the retail giant played a key role in “the most egregious example” of Post’s alleged wrongdoing: “Post essentially worked with Walmart to ensure that none of the boxes of Snoop Cereal would ever appear on the store shelves.”
According to Snoop and Master P, the duo launched Broadus Foods and Snoop Cereal in 2022 in an effort to “add diversity to the food industry” and create a “legacy” that they could leave behind for their families. When they approached Post about a production and distribution partnership, they say the “breakfast juggernaut” attempted to buy the company outright, but that they refused.
Spurned from acquiring the upstart company, they claim Post agreed to a partnership whereby it would not only produce the products but also “treat Snoop Cereal as one of its own brands” and distribute it to major retailers, including Walmart, Target, Kroger and Amazon. But behind the scenes, they claim that Post was working to sabotage the new company.
“Unbeknownst to Broadus Foods, Post was not on board with their goals and dreams and had no intention of treating Snoop Cereal equally as its own brands,” Crump writes. “Instead, Post intended to only give appearances that they were following the Agreement.”
The worst case of such alleged mistreatment, according to the lawsuit, was the situation at Walmart. Snoop and Master P claim that Snoop Cereal initially sold well at the massive chain, but that Walmart’s system soon began to falsely show that the product was out of stock.
“However, upon further investigation by store employees, each of these stores had several boxes of Snoop Cereal in their stockrooms that were coded to not be put out on the store shelves,” the company’s lawyers write. “Unlike the other Post branded boxes of cereal around them, these Snoop Cereal boxes had been in the stockrooms for months without ever being made available to customers.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit claims that Post breached its agreements with and fiduciary duty to Broadus Foods, as well as defrauded the smaller company and made negligent misrepresentations. The case claims that Walmart committed so-called tortious interference by going along with Post’s scheme and that it aided and abetted Post in breaching its fiduciary duty. And the lawsuit claims that both companies committed civil conspiracy by working together.
Reps for both Post and Walmart did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday evening.
Taylor Swift’s lawyers are threatening to sue a Florida college student who runs social media accounts that track celebrity private jets, calling it “stalking and harassing behavior.”
According to a report Tuesday (Feb. 6) by the Washington Post, Jack Sweeney received a cease-and-desist letter from Swift’s attorneys in December, warning they would have “have no choice but to pursue any and all legal remedies” if he did not stop posting the locations of Swift’s private jet.
Sweeney runs social media accounts that track flights by celebrities and other public figures, ranging from Kim Kardashian to Bill Gates to Donald Trump. In 2022, he was banned from X (formerly Twitter) after he posted such info for billionaire Elon Musk, the site’s owner. He cites publicly-available government flight data, alongside estimates of carbon emissions from each flight.
In the legal letter, Swift’s lawyers (led by Katie Wright Morrone of the firm Venable LLP) warned Sweeney that his posts posed an “imminent threat” to Swift’s “safety and wellbeing.” The letter said Sweeney’s posts were “in violation of several state laws,” but did not specify which ones.
“While this may be a game to you, or an avenue that you hope will earn you wealth or fame, it is a life-or-death matter for our Client,” Morrone wrote, according to the Post. “Ms. Swift has dealt with stalkers and other individuals who wish her harm.”
The letter also referenced the earlier dispute with Musk, including Sweeney’s offer to delete the account for $50,000: “We are aware of your public disputes with other high-profile individuals and your tactics in those interactions, including offering to stop your harmful behavior only in exchange for items of value.”
News of the dispute with Sweeney comes just weeks after a man named David Crowe was arrested outside Swift’s Manhattan home and charged with stalking; prosecutors say Crowe was spotted more than 30 times outside her apartment and had repeatedly attempted to enter the building. In 2022, another man was arrested after he crashed his car into her building and attempted to get inside.
In a statement Tuesday on the letter to Sweeney, Swift’s spokeswoman, Tree Paine, stressed the risk of stalkers: “We cannot comment on any ongoing police investigation but can confirm the timing of stalkers suggests a connection. His posts tell you exactly when and where she would be.”
According to the Post’s report, many of Sweeney’s posts are derived from government data compiled by the Federal Aviation Administration. Though celebrities can request to hide their planes from those databases — and Swift appears to have done so — volunteer hobbyists can still track such aircraft via the signals they broadcast, and they often upload such info to independent public websites.
In the Post report, Sweeney said that he was merely posting public information that’s “already out there.” His attorney went further, calling the claims from Swift’s attorneys “hyperbolic and unfounded” and saying the posts posed “no threat” to the superstar.
Sammy Hagar‘s company is demanding that a federal judge shut down an allegedly unauthorized Hollywood location of his Cabo Wabo Cantina, claiming that a former franchisee has gone rogue and is damaging the rock star’s reputation.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Attorneys for Hagar’s company (Red Head Inc.) sued last month, claiming that franchisee Robert Azinian had opened a new Cabo Wabo on Hollywood Blvd across from the TCL Chinese Theatre even though his licensing deal had been terminated. Now, in a new filing Monday, they asked for an immediate injunction blocking Azinian from continuing to use the name or any other company branding on his new eatery.
“Every day that the Cabo Wabo Cantina at the new Hollywood location continues to operate under the ‘Cabo Wabo’ brand, it soils the name, reputation, and goodwill that Red Head has developed,” the company’s lawyers write. “Defendants were instructed to discontinue any and all use of the marks, but they have ignored that request.”
Hagar and his Van Halen bandmates opened Cabo Wabo Cantina in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico in 1990; after buying out his partners, he later launched a line of tequila under the same name. Hagar sold the liquor brand to Gruppo Campari for $101 million, but his Red Head Inc. continues to operate the restaurant in Cabo and later franchised locations in Las Vegas and Los Angeles.
Last month, Red Head sued Azinian in California federal court, claiming he had essentially gone rogue after years of successfully running the Los Angeles location. The lawsuit claimed that Azinian had closed his original spot on Hollywood Blvd and “surreptitiously” relocated across the street, all without seeking the required approvals. They warned the new Cabo Wabo was already causing confusion with customers, citing Instagram comments like one in which a user wondered “is Sammy Hagar still affiliated?”
In Monday’s filing, Red Head echoed those arguments in asking for a preliminary injunction, which will block Azinian from continuing to use any Cabo Wabo branding while the case plays out. Without such an order, Hagar’s company warned that the unauthorized eatery could cause severe damage to Cabo Wabo’s reputation.
“Defendants’ continue to use the Cabo Wabo marks in connection with their operation of the restaurant — but Red Head has no oversight, control, or even visibility as to the quality of any one aspect of Defendants’ business, such as the quality of décor, the quality of staff, the quality of materials, or the quality of food,” the lawyers write. “Red Head currently has no control over any of it.”
Neither side immediately returned requests 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: A judge denies Lizzo’s request to dismiss a bombshell harassment lawsuit filed by her backup dancers; an ugly flood of Taylor Swift deepfakes highlights a growing problem; an update on Earth Wind & Fire’s trademark lawsuit against a tribute band; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Lizzo Harassment Case Moves Forward
Two days before Lizzo showed up to present an award at the Grammys on Sunday night, a Los Angeles judge ruled that the singer’s legal problems would not be going away any time soon.
In a decision Friday, Judge Mark H. Epstein denied Lizzo’s motion to toss out a bombshell sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit, filed by three of her former backup dancers last year. Though he dismissed certain accusations – including a particularly loaded charge that Lizzo fat-shamed one of her dancers – the judge ruled that the remainder of the case could go forward.
Lizzo argued in October that that case should be dismissed under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a special law that makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Her attorneys said the dancers’ case was a “brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices.”
As I said at the time, that argument was an unusual one. Anti-SLAPP motions are used quite frequently in defamation lawsuits that have been filed by powerful people against their critics; I can’t ever remember seeing one used by an employer who has been sued by their workers for violating labor laws.
In his decision last week, Judge Epstein largely agreed. Though he said that finding the balance – between free speech and illegal worlkplace conduct – was “no easy task,” he ultimately decided that many of the allegations against Lizzo did not fit under the anti-SLAPP law’s protections.
Go read why in our full story on the Lizzo ruling, including a detailed breakdown of the decision and access to the actual ruling issued by the judge.
Other top stories this week…
TAYLOR SWIFT DEEPFAKES – After X was flooded with fake, sexually-explicit images of Taylor Swift, I dove deep and tried to get an understanding of the legal lay of the land. Were these deepfake images illegal? Should new laws be passed to stop them? Are social media sites doing enough to stop them? Turns out, legal experts say the ugly incident is a sign of things to come, as artificial intelligence tools make deepfakes easier to create and tech companies scale back content moderation. Go read the whole story here.
‘GEORGE & TAMMY’ CASE – Showtime was hit with a lawsuit over the 2022 television series centered on country music legends George Jones and Tammy Wynette, filed by the estate of Wynette’s later husband George Richey. The lawsuit claims that the producers presented a “disparaging” portrayal of Richey that turned him into the “villain” of the show. But it’s not a defamation lawsuit…
RAP ON TRIAL? NOT IN BK – A federal judge overseeing Jam Master Jay’s murder trial in Brooklyn ruled that prosecutors could not cite rap lyrics written by the rapper’s alleged killer as evidence against him – in the process, wading into one of music law’s thorniest issues. After offering a sweeping historical overview of hip hop’s past, the judge warned that general themes of violence and crime have become “so prevalent within the genre that they have little, if any, probative value at trial.” As a result, she said they should only be admitted if they have a clear, direct connection to the facts of the case: “Music artists should be free to create without fear that their lyrics could be unfairly used against them.”
TRIBUTE TRADEMARKS – A tribute band that was sued last year by Earth, Wind & Fire for using the name “Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion” won a small ruling in the ongoing trademark infringement case, allowing them to continue pursuing their eyebrow-raising counterargument: That the legendary R&B group somehow abandoned the intellectual property rights to its name.
SUBLIME MALPRACTICE SUIT – The 90s rock band filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the prominent music law firm King Holmes Paterno & Soriano LLP, accusing its former attorneys of a “pattern of self-dealing.” Sublime’s surviving members say the firm’s lawyers – including legendary music attorneys Howard King and Peter Paterno – had undisclosed conflicts of interest on numerous matters, including brokering a merchandise deal with one of the firm’s other clients that the band claims cost it millions of dollars. When reached for comment on the allegations, King told Billboard simply: “Welcome to Fantasyland. Please enjoy the ride.”
NIRVANA’S SMILEY FACE FIGHT – A years-long legal battle over the grunge band’s famed smiley face logo could be headed for a major showdown, sparked by a former record label art designer named Robert Fisher who says he, and not Kurt Cobain, created the famed drawing.
Marilyn Manson, who was sentenced to community service for blowing his nose on a videographer at a 2019 concert in New Hampshire, recently completed his time at an organization that provides meeting space for Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon, according to court paperwork.
The shock rocker, 55, spent 20 hours last month at the Windsor Club of Glendale, a California nonprofit that provides meeting locations for Alcoholics Anonymous and families of alcoholics to “achieve a more meaningful life through recovery,” according to the group’s website.
A certificate of completion was filed by the Assistance League of Los Angeles with a New Hampshire court on Jan. 30. Manson had to file proof of his service by Feb. 4.
Manson, whose legal name is Brian Warner, pleaded no contest in September to the misdemeanor charge in Laconia, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) north of Concord, the state capital.
A no contest plea means Manson did not contest the charge and did not admit guilt.
He initially was charged with two misdemeanor counts of simple assault stemming from the encounter with the videographer at the Bank of New Hampshire Pavilion in Gilford on Aug. 19, 2019. The second charge, alleging that he spit on the videographer, was dropped.
Manson also was fined. He needs to remain arrest-free and notify local police of any New Hampshire performances for two years.
Prosecutor Andrew Livernois had said it was his first offense and he had no prior record.
Manson initially pleaded not guilty to both charges in 2021. His lawyer had said that the type of filming the videographer was doing commonly exposes videographers to “incidental contact” with bodily fluids.
Manson emerged as a musical star in the mid-1990s, known as much for courting public controversy as for hit songs like “The Beautiful People” and hit albums like 1996’s “Antichrist Superstar” and 1998’s “Mechanical Animals.”
Last year, a California judge threw out key sections of Manson’s lawsuit against his former fiancée, Westworld actor Evan Rachel Wood, claiming she fabricated public allegations that he sexually and physically abused her during their relationship and encouraged other women to do the same. He is appealing the ruling. The judge recently ruled that Manson cover Wood’s legal fees, according to Rolling Stone.
Manson’s lawsuit, filed last year, alleges that Wood and another woman named as a defendant, Illma Gore, defamed Manson, intentionally caused him emotional distress and derailed his career in music, TV and film.
Several women have sued Manson in recent years with allegations of sexual and other abuse. Most have been dismissed or settled, including a suit filed by Game of Thrones actor Esmé Bianco.
The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have been sexually abused unless they come forward publicly.
A Los Angeles judge on Friday (Feb. 2) denied Lizzo’s motion to toss out a bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit filed by three of her former backup dancers, dismissing certain accusations but allowing the case as a whole to move forward toward a trial.
Facing allegations of harassment and discrimination, Lizzo argued last year that case should be dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute — a special law that makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech (known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation”). Her lawyers argued that the accusers were using the lawsuit to “silence” her.
But in a detailed, 34-page decision, Judge Mark H. Epstein ruled that the anti-SLAPP statute didn’t quite fit all of the lawsuit’s allegations. He tossed out some claims – including a particularly loaded charge that Lizzo fat-shamed one of her dancers – but ruled that remainder of the case could go forward.
Figuring out the proper balance – between protected speech and illegal discrimination – was “no easy task,” Judge Epstein wrote, but he said he had “tried to thread this needle.”
“It is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally protected activity,” the judge wrote. “But it is equally dangerous to turn a blind eye to allegations of discrimination or other forms of misconduct merely because they take place in a speech-related environment.”
The case against Lizzo, filed in August by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accuses the singer (real name Melissa Jefferson) and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of creating a hostile work environment through a wide range of legal wrongdoing, including not just sexual harassment but also religious and racial discrimination. The alleged weight-shaming, the lawsuit claims, amounted to a form of disability discrimination.
In one particularly vivid allegation, Lizzo’s accusers claimed she pushed them to attend a live sex show at a venue in Amsterdam’s famed Red Light District called Bananenbar, and then pressured them to engage with the performers, including “eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.” After Lizzo herself allegedly led a chant “goading” Davis to touch one performer’s breasts, the lawsuit says, Davis eventually did so.
Repped by Hollywood defense attorney Martin D. Singer, Lizzo fired back in October, arguing that Davis, Williams and Rodriguez had “an axe to grind” against the star because they had been reprimanded over “a pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job up to par.”
“Plaintiffs embarked on a press tour, vilifying defendants and pushing their fabricated sob story in the courts and in the media. That ends today,” Singer wrote. “Instead of taking any accountability for their own actions, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants out of spite and in pursuit of media attention, public sympathy and a quick payday with minimal effort.”
The filing came with sworn statements from 18 members of Lizzo’s touring company who dispute many of the lawsuit’s specific factual accusations. That included several who challenged the headline-grabbing claim that Lizzo fat-shamed some of her dancers — a particularly loaded allegation against a singer who has made body positivity a key part of her brand.
Lizzo’s counter-attack came under the anti-SLAPP law. Anti-SLAPP motions are filed every day, but it was unusual to see one aimed at dismissing a harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed by former employees against their employer. They’re more common in precisely the opposite scenario: filed by an individual who claims that they’re being unfairly sued by a powerful person to silence accusations of abuse or other wrongdoing.
In their filings, Lizzo’s lawyers argued that the anti-SLAPP law could still apply to the current case because of the creative nature of the work in question. They called the lawsuit “a brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them.”
But in his ruling on Friday, Judge Epstein largely rejected that argument. He said that conduct relating to speech is protected and that California law “law wisely disfavors chilling such conduct.” But he cautioned that free speech was not a magic wand against allegations of employer wrongdoing.
“The fact that the alleged incidents take place in the entertainment or speech world is no shield of invulnerability or license to ignore law enacted for the protection of California’s citizens,” the judge said.
The judge dismissed a sexual harassment allegation involving a nude photoshoot on the set of the reality competition series Lizzo’s Watch Out for the Big Grrrls; a disability discrimination accusation around one dancer’s allegation that she was fired from Lizzo’s tour after disclosing her mental health issues; and another allegation stating that Lizzo’s camp intentionally interfered with the dancers’ other job prospects after placing them on a “soft hold” and telling them they could not accept other work.
Lizzo and Shirlene Quigley, the captain of the singer’s dance team, will still have to face other allegations of sexual harassment, as well as accusations of racial and religious discrimination.
“We’re very pleased with the judge’s ruling, and we absolutely consider it a victory on balance,” said the dancers’ lawyer, Ron Zambrano, in a statement. “He did dismiss a few allegations, including the meeting where Arianna was fat shamed, the nude photo shoot, and dancers being forced to be on ‘hold’ while not on tour. However, all the other claims remain, including sexual, religious and racial discrimination, sexual harassment, the demeaning visits to the Bananenbar in Amsterdam and Crazy Horse in Paris, false imprisonment, and assault. The ruling also rightfully signals that Lizzo – or any celebrity – is not insulated from this sort of reprehensible conduct merely because she is famous. We now look forward to conducting discovery and preparing the case for trial.”
In his own statement, Lizzo’s lawyer, Stefan Friedman, said: “We are pleased that Judge Epstein wisely threw out all or part of four of the plaintiffs’ causes of action. Lizzo is grateful to the judge for seeing through much of the noise and recognizing who she is – a strong woman who exists to lift others up and spread positivity. We plan to appeal all elements that the judge chose to keep in the lawsuit and are confident we will prevail.”
The rock band Sublime has filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the prominent music law firm King Holmes Paterno & Soriano LLP, accusing its former attorneys of a “pattern of self-dealing” that was rife with conflicts of interest.
In a complaint filed last week in Los Angeles court, Sublime claims that Howard King, Peter Paterno and Joseph M. Carlone committed a wide range of malpractice while representing the band, including brokering a merchandise deal with one of the firm’s other clients that the band alleges cost it millions of dollars.
The lawsuit claims that King Holmes — a storied music industry law firm with a star-studded list of clients — “failed in their ethical, fiduciary, and lawyerly obligations to protect the interests of their clients.”
“Behind their façade as music industry power brokers, KHPS’ number one priority was not their client Sublime’s legal and business goals, but rather KHPS’ own financial and business interests,” the band’s new attorneys write. “Despite holding themselves out to the public as highly experienced in the business side of music, … defendants engaged in a pattern of self-dealing that was rife with potential and actual, conflicts of interest.”
When reached for comment on the allegations Thursday, Howard King told Billboard simply: “Welcome to Fantasyland. Please enjoy the ride.”
The case was filed by Sublime’s surviving members, Eric Wilson and Bud Gaugh, as well as by the widow and son of Bradley Nowell, Sublime’s original lead singer who died of a drug overdose in 1996. The band’s corporate entities — Sublime Merchandising LLC and Jake And Troy Brand LLC — were also named as plaintiffs.
King Holmes Paterno & Soriano touts an eye-popping list of music industry clients, from Dr. Dre to Pharrell Williams to Blink-182 to the Tupac Shakur estate. King famously represented Williams and Robin Thicke in the “Blurred Lines” copyright case; Paterno represented Metallica in its legal battles against Napster over internet piracy.
But in its complaint, Sublime accuses King Holmes of “playing both sides” on multiple occasions. In one instance, the firm allegedly failed to disclose that it was representing both the band and former manager Dave Kaplan on the same transaction, even though the two sides had “adverse interests” in the deal. In another, the band claims that King Holmes steered the band into a merchandise deal without disclosing that the company was another one of the firm’s clients.
“Instead of negotiating the most lucrative terms for Sublime on the open market among multiple potential merchandising vendors, KHPS participated in self-dealing,” the band wrote. “KHPS misadvised SUBLIME which resulted in SUBLIME entering into an agreement with FEA, which triggered far less lucrative terms and merchandising royalties than Sublime would have otherwise gotten if they had been taken to the open market at that time.”
In another incident, Sublime claims that Paterno and Carlone failed to disclose that they had negotiated producer credits and fees for themselves on a documentary about the band, allegedly creating another undisclosed conflict of interest.
“Sublime never requested that Paterno make himself a producer, nor Carlone make himself a co producer on the documentary,” the lawsuit reads. “Paterno not only covertly insisted on and obtained this producer title and hefty sum of money, but he then shockingly billed SUBLIME thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal bills for time spent negotiating and obtaining the terms of his producer credit and fee.”
A years-long legal fight over Nirvana‘s iconic smiley face logo could be headed for a major showdown, sparked by a former record label art designer who says he, not Kurt Cobain, created the famed drawing.
Lawyers for the 1990s legends are locked in a sprawling, three-way dispute over the image, which has appeared on countless t-shirts and other merch in the years since Cobain’s death. Nirvana is suing fashion designer Marc Jacobs for using it without permission on grunge-themed apparel, while Robert Fisher — a former designer at Geffen Records — is fighting the band over who created it in the first place.
In a filing last month in Los Angeles federal court, Fisher asked for the right to take the case to a federal appeals court. He wants to challenge a decision in favor of the band, issued in December by the judge overseeing the case, that he claims would “unfairly tip the balance of equities in favor of Nirvana” in an upcoming trial.
“For justice to occur, the jury should be presented with all disputed issues of fact, not only those convenient to Nirvana,” Fisher’s lawyers wrote.
Nirvana has been in court for years over the famous drawing – a yellow smiley face with X’d-out eyes that first appeared during promotion for 1991’s Nevermind. The design eventually became something of an unofficial logo for the band, and has become particularly prominent again in recent years amid a wave of 90s nostalgia among younger music fans.
Lawyers for Nirvana’s corporate entity first sued Marc Jacobs in 2018, accusing the design house of using a look-alike image on a line of its own t-shirts and other apparel called “Bootleg Redux Grunge.” They said Jacobs had just replaced “Nirvana” with the word “Heaven” and replaced the two eyes with an “M” and a “J,” but had changed little else.
“Defendants’ use of Nirvana’s copyrighted image on and to promote its products is intentional, and is part and parcel of a wider campaign to associate the entire ‘Bootleg Redux Grunge’ collection with Nirvana, one of the founders of the ‘grunge’ musical genre,” the band’s lawyers wrote at the time.
In their initial complaint, Nirvana’s lawyers said the smiley face had been created by Cobain – the conventional wisdom for decades about the logo’s origins. But after reading media coverage of the lawsuit, Fisher jumped into the case in 2020, claiming the band’s allegations against Jacobs suffered from just one teeny-tiny flaw: “It is, in fact, Mr. Fisher, who authored the Happy Face, not Mr. Kurt Cobain.”
In legal filings, Fisher told a detailed story of how he allegedly created the design. While working as an art director at Geffen, he said he had quickly become “Nirvana’s go-to person for most of its graphic design needs.” In the summer of 1991, he says he was asked to design something more “consumer-friendly” than an existing t-shirt logo, which featured a circular illustration depicting one of the circles of hell from Dantes Inferno.
“Wanting to stick with a circular design, he started playing around with variations of the smiley faces that he used to draw in his final year at [college], when acid culture was at its peak,” Fisher’s lawyers wrote. “Ultimately, Mr. Fisher settled on an x-eyed design and added a tongue pointing sideways.”
After the lawsuit against Marc Jacobs was filed, Fisher says he originally took his story to the band, assuming it would “help” their lawyers to understand his involvement in the creation of the smiley logo. But he says he was quickly rebuffed because the “the facts” were “a serious inconvenience” to the band.
“For 30 years now, Nirvana has reaped enormous profits from Mr. Fisher’s works through the sale of a wide range of products,” his lawyers wrote in their legal filings. “Assisted by a team of lawyers and managers, Nirvana was able to do so without any compensation to Mr. Fisher by falsely claiming authorship and ownership.”
Unsurprisingly, Nirvana see things differently. The band’s lawyers have staunchly maintained that it was Cobain who had designed the image. But as an alternative, they’ve also argued something else: That even if it was Fisher who created the logo, he did done so as a “work-for-hire” for Geffen. Under the rules of copyright law, would mean that the company — and not Fisher — was the legal “author” of the work.
In December, Judge John A. Kronstadt largely agreed with Nirvana’s assessment. Fisher had argued that he’d done the logo on his own, as a side project separate from his job at Geffen. But the judge ruled that Fisher had clearly been an employee of Geffen at the time, and the task in question – designing a graphic for a Geffen-signed band – was clearly done as part of that job. “Assuming Fisher drew the Smiley,” the judge wrote, “it was a work for hire for Geffen.”
It’s that ruling that Fisher now wants to appeal. In last month’s filing, he asked Judge Kronstadt to hit pause on the case, and instead allow him to immediately challenge the decision at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In doing so, he warned the judge that his decision on the work-for-hire issue was not only “highly erroneous” – he says he created the design “as a fan of the band, outside of any of his tasks for Geffen” — but also procedurally unfair.
“It will likely be years until this lawsuit is finally resolved and Fisher is able to appeal,” his lawyers wrote. “This case would proceed to a trial where the jury would be extremely limited in the findings it could make and where it would be required to completely ignore Fisher’s position in this matter.”
Attorneys for Nirvana did not return a request for comment, but they believe no such delay is necessary. In legal filings, they’ve asked the judge to move toward settling a trial date; in private correspondence that Fisher disclosed in his filings, they were more blunt: “We are opposed. The Court’s ruling is clear, carefully considered and correct. No more delay. Let’s get the case to trial ASAP.”
Lawyers for Marc Jacobs – which obviously stands to benefit if Fisher is the true owner of the smiley face logo – declined to comment for this story. But they’ve also weighed in and, unsurprisingly, they want any talk of a trial postponed until Judge Kronstadt decides on whether Fisher can get his chance to make his case before an appeals court: “The case will only be ready for trial after Mr. Fisher’s role in that trial is determined.”