Legal
Page: 56
Jimmie Allenâs former manager has agreed to dismiss her lawsuit claiming the country singer sexually assaulted her, ending the case less than a year after it was filed.
In court papers filed Thursday (Mar. 14), attorneys for Allen and his unnamed Jane Doe accuser â his former day-to-day manager â jointly asked a federal judge to dismiss her claims against the country singer. In the same filing, Allen also agreed to drop his counter-suit accusing the woman of defamation.
Jane Doeâs attorney, Beth Fegan at the law firm FeganScott, confirmed the agreement to Billboard: âFeganScott can confirm that Jane Doe and Jimmie Allen have reached a mutual accord as to Plaintiffâs claims and Mr. Allenâs counterclaims and have agreed to dismiss them The decision reflects only that both parties desire to move past litigation.â
Trending on Billboard
A rep for Allen did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Though the claims against Allen will be dropped, the case will continue against management firm Wide Open Music, where the Jane Doe plaintiff was employed, and its founder, Ash Bowers. In her lawsuit, the accuser says Wide Open and Bowers didnât do enough to protect their employee from Allenâs abusive behavior and fired her when she complained about it.
The agreement also wonât fully end Allenâs legal woes. The country star will continue to face a second lawsuit, filed by another Jane Doe, who claims that the singer assaulted her in a Las Vegas hotel room and secretly recorded it. That case remains pending.
Allen was a rising star in the country music world at the start of last year, but in May and June he was hit with the pair of sexual abuse lawsuits in quick succession. Following the accusations, his label, booking agency, former publicist and management company all suspended or dropped him.
The first case, filed on May 11, alleged that Allen had âmanipulated and used his powerâ over the woman on his management team to âsexually harass and abuse herâ over a period of 18 months that elapsed from 2020 to 2022.
âPlaintiff expressed in words and actions that Jimmie Allenâs conduct was unwelcome, including pushing him away, sitting where he could not reach her, telling him she was uncomfortable and no, and crying uncontrollably,â the womanâs lawyers wrote in the complaint. âHowever, Allen made clear that plaintiffâs job was dependent on her staying silent about his conduct.â
The second lawsuit, filed on June 9, accused Allen of battery, assault and other wrongdoing over an alleged July 2022 incident at the Cosmopolitan Hotel in Las Vegas. Though the Jane Doe in that case says she had âwillingly joined Allen in the bedroom,â she claimed she had ârepeatedly told him she did not want him to ejaculate inside herâ because she was not on birth control, but that Allen had done so anyway. She also claimed that he had secretly filmed the encounter on his phone despite the fact that she had ânot consented to being recordedâ
Allen strongly denied all the accusations, saying he would âmount a vigorous defense.â He later counter-sued both women â accusing the management employee of defaming him and claiming that the other woman had stolen the phone he allegedly used to record her.
The Black Eyed Peas and Daddy Yankee are facing a lawsuit over allegations that they illegally sampled from classic 90s song âScatman (Ski-Ba-Bop-Ba-Dop-Bop)â â a case that claims the artists âsimply liedâ in order to âavoid paying a larger licensing fee.â
In a lawsuit filed March 8, the company that owns the rights to âScatmanâ accuse will.i.am (William Adams), Daddy Yankee (Luis Ayala RodrĂguez) and others of âclear-cut copyright infringementâ over their use of Scatman Johnâs ear-catching 1995 track in their own 2022 song âBailar Contigo.â
The current owners of âScatmanâ (Iceberg Records AS) claim that they granted a âlimited licenseâ allowing the superstars to use the underlying written music, but explicitly warned that a license to actually sample from the sound recording  would cost more. The case claims the artists agreed to those terms, but that their âassurances turned out to be pretense.â
Trending on Billboard
âAfter comparing the tracks, it is apparent that the derivative work and the song are so strikingly similar that defendants have used the sound recording of the song, rather than just the composition, as agreed,â attorneys for Iceberg write in their lawsuit. âDefendants simply lied to plaintiff about not using the sound recording in order to avoid paying a larger licensing fee.â
The new case highlights the distinction between sampling (the use of an actual recording of an artistâs performance) and interpolation (the use of the same music but re-performed by the new artists). Sampling licenses require paying the owners of both the master and publishing copyrights to a given song, and thus typically cost more than interpolation licenses.
In the case of âScatmanâ and âBailar Contigo,â Iceberg claims it inked an interpolation deal with the Black Eyed Peas and Daddy Yankee in October 2022 in return for 75 percent stake in the publishing rights to the new song and a 5 percent income stream from the new recording. But Iceberg, which also owns the master to the song, says the contract âmade clearâ that the agreement was not a sampling deal.
âRights to the recording of the original work (so called master rights) are not subject of this approval and require separate licensing,â the 2022 agreement purportedly read.
But when the song was released in November 2022, Icebergâs lawyers say it obviously included a sample, not just an interpolation: âAlthough it appears that defendants attempted to manipulate the sound recording slightly to hide their infringement, the work remains so strikingly similar to the song that it could not have been created without using the songâs sound recording.â
Reps for both the Black Eyed Peas and Daddy Yankee did not immediately return requests for comment on the allegations. In addition to naming will.i.am as a defendant, the lawsuit also named Black Eyed Peas members apl.de.ap (Allen Pineda Lindo) and Taboo (Jaime Luis Gomez); it did not name not Fergie, who left the group in 2018.
Faced with only being able to secure an interpolation deal and not an outright sample clearance, artists will sometimes re-record a song in ways that sound very similar to the original recording. But that practice can ruffle feathers with the owners of masters, and has led to disputes in the past.
Last year, Rick Astley filed a high-profilelawsuit against Yung Gravy over the rapperâs breakout 2022 hit that heavily borrowed from the singerâs iconic âNever Gonna Give You Up,â alleging that the new track â an interpolation that sounded a whole lot like an outright sample â broke the law by impersonating Astleyâs voice. In that case, Gravy cleared the underlying music (which Astley does not own) but failed to secure a license to sample the master.
The lawsuit, premised on Astleyâs likeness rights, raised big questions about sound-alike songs and sampling, but the dispute was settled on confidential terms in September.
A London appeals court on Thursday (Mar. 14) overturned the murder conviction of Jamaican dancehall star Vybz Kartel, ruling that the 2014 guilty verdict was tainted by allegations that one juror attempted to bribe others.
The ruling came more than a decade after Kartel â a popular Jamaican artist who has worked with Rihanna, Jay-Z and others â and three others were convicted in Kingston, Jamaica of the 2011 killing of an associate named Clive âLizardâ Williams, whose body was never found.
In the decision, the appeals court ruled that the judge overseeing the 2014 trial had made a âfatalâ error: allowing the jury to proceed to a verdict despite news that one of the jurors had attempted to bribe others. That juror was not removed, and soon after the jury returned a guilty verdict.
Trending on Billboard
âThere should have been no question of allowing Juror X to continue to serve on the jury,â the appeals court wrote Thursday. âAllowing Juror X to continue to serve on the jury is fatal to the safety of the convictions which followed. This was an infringement of the defendantsâ fundamental right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial court.â
The decision came from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a London court that decides last-resort appeals from certain countries belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations, including Jamaica.
The ruling overturned Kartelâs conviction and his 32-year prison sentence, but he could still face a retrial on the same accusations. The appeals court said that Jamaican courts would decide whether such a trial will take place.
Kartel â along with co-defendants Shawn Campbell, Kahira Jones and Andre St John â faced a 64-day jury trial in early 2014 over accusations that they had killed Williams after he failed to return two unlicensed firearms they had lent him.
But on the final day of the trial, the judge was told that Juror X had attempted to âpersuade another member of the juryâ to acquit the defendants by offering bribes of 500,000 Jamaican dollars (roughly $3,200 US).
After receiving that information, the judge was faced with an unusually difficult choice. Because another juror had already been discharged over a separate issue, the only choice was to end the trial entirely after weeks of testimony or allow the case to continue to a verdict.
âIt might have been possible simply to discharge a miscreant juror and to allow the remaining members of the jury to return verdicts [but] that was not possible here,â the appeals court wrote Thursday.
Though the appeals court said it had âconsiderable sympathy with the judgeâs dilemma,â it said the decision to proceed with the problematic juror had been a âserious irregularityâ that would result in a âmiscarriage of justiceâ if allowed to stand.
âIn coming to this conclusion, the Board is mindful of the very serious consequences which may flow from having to discharge a jury shortly before the end of a long and complex criminal trial,â the appeals court wrote, noting that England has statutes aimed at dealing with such situations.
âHowever, in the absence of such a provision â and there is no such provision in Jamaica â there will be occasions on which, as in the present case, a court will have no alternative but to discharge a jury and end the trial in order to protect the integrity of the system of trial by jury,â the court wrote.
Kelly Clarksonâs ongoing legal battle with ex-husband Brandon Blackstock is expanding with a new lawsuit aimed at potentially going much further than the $2.6 million ruling she won against him last fall.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
With Blackstock currently appealing that November decision, Clarkson filed a new case Monday in Los Angeles court, seeking a ruling that he and his fatherâs management firm had been violating state labor rules all the way back to back to the very start of their relationship.
Clarksonâs new lawsuit is seeking an order that would require the return of âany and all commissions, fees, profits, advances, producing fees or other moniesâ she paid to Blackstockâs fatherâs company, Starstruck Entertainment, dating back to 2007 â much further back than the earlier judgment, which only reached back to 2017.
Trending on Billboard
The new case is the latest development in a sprawling legal battle between the two ex-spouses, who split in 2020 after seven years of marriage. The divorce itself was finalized in 2022, but that personal settlement didnât resolve tricky business entanglements with Blackstockâs fatherâs firm, which managed her for years.
Shortly after Clarkson filed for divorce, Starstruck sued her for millions in allegedly unpaid fees, claiming it had âinvested a great deal of time, money, energy, and dedicationâ into her and had âdeveloped Clarkson into a mega superstar.â
Clarkson responded by filing a complaint with Californiaâs Labor Commissioner, arguing that Blackstock and Starstruck had violated Californiaâs Talent Agencies Act (TAA) by serving not just as her personal managers, but as unlicensed talent agents who booked business deals.
In November, Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower ruled that Blackstock had indeed procured a number of deals for Clarkson, including her lucrative role as a judge on The Voice, that should have been handled by her talent agents at Creative Artists Agency (CAA). The decision ordered Blackstock to repay Clarkson more than $2.6 million in commissions she paid to him for handling those deals.
In December, Blackstock and Starstruck challenged that ruling in court, demanding that same questions be re-decided by a Los Angeles judge rather than by the Labor Commissioner. That case remains pending and is set for a hearing in August.
With her new lawsuit, Clarkson could win a ruling that would effectively confirm the findings of the Labor Commissioner. But the case could also give her a vehicle to expand the Commissionerâs decision â a ruling that went her way, but also rejected some of her core claims against Blackstock and Starstruck.
For instance, the commissioner rejected Clarksonâs claim that Blackstock was also required to pay back commissions he earned from helping to secure The Kelly Clarkson Show â which could have seen him owe much more. His involvement in that deal, including âstrategizingâ with her agents, was clearly âat the request of CAAâ and thus not a violation of the law, the commissioner ruled.
An attorney for Blackstock did not immediately return a request for comment.
After a marriage of seven years, Clarkson filed for divorce from Blackstock in June 2020. The case was finalized two years later, with the singer agreeing to pay her ex-husband monthly child support of $45,601 for their two children, plus a one-time payment of just over $1.3 million.
A criminal case against YoungBoy Never Broke Again over federal gun charges must be put on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court decides a closely-watched Second Amendment battle this spring, a federal judge says â likely delaying a trial that had been scheduled to start in July.
In an order Wednesday (Mar. 13), U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick said she would wait to proceed until after the justices had issued their gun-control ruling since the Supreme Courtâs looming decision will likely touch on the same Second Amendment questions at play in NBA YoungBoyâs case.
YoungBoyâs lawyers say the law heâs accused of breaking â a ban on convicted felons possessing firearms â is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, which protects the right to âkeep and bear arms.â The pending Supreme Court case, meanwhile, will decide the constitutionality of a similar federal ban on gun ownership for domestic abusers.
Trending on Billboard
After years of house arrest, YoungBoy (Kentrell DeSean Gaulden) had finally been set for a trial in July. Wednesdayâs order will likely delay that trial since it could be June before the high court even rules on the pending case. But the delay might be worth it: If the Supreme Court rules against the gun restrictions in that case, it could greatly help YoungBoy beat his charges altogether.
The rapperâs attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.
YoungBoy was indicted by federal prosecutors in March 2021 after he was allegedly found with two guns during a September 2020 incident in Baton Rouge, La. He was charged with violating a long-standing federal law that bans convicted felons from ever again possessing guns â a rule that applied to him because he was convicted in 2017 of aggravated assault with a firearm.
In a motion filed last month, attorneys for the rapper argued that the charges against YoungBoy must be dismissed without trial because that federal ban violates the Second Amendment. They cited a landmark gun control ruling issued by the high court in 2022, which struck down a New York state law that had placed strict limits on carrying guns outside the home.
Echoing the language of that ruling, YoungBoyâs lawyers said the federal felon-in-possession statute was similarly unconstitutional because it was âinconsistent with our nationâs historical tradition of firearm regulation.â
 âThis prosecution seeks to restrict and deny Mr. Gauldenâs Second Amendment right to possess a firearm based solely on his status a felon and his alleged failure to comply with bureaucratic regulations,â the starâs attorneys told the judge.
In a response this month, federal prosecutors sharply disagreed, arguing that the gun ban for convicts had already been upheld in âhundreds of casesâ since the Supreme Courtâs 2022 ruling. They acknowledged that a few judges had ruled otherwise, but that the âoverwhelming majority of courtsâ had continued to enforce the law.
In Wednesdayâs order, Judge Dick said she could not decide those arguments until the Supreme Court rules on United States v. Rahimi, the pending case challenging a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The case, argued last fall, is expected to be decided by June.
Itâs difficult to predict how the Supreme Court might rule on a given case, but the tea leaves donât look good for YoungBoyâs position. After arguments in the Rahimi case in November, Reuters reported that the court âappeared inclined to uphold the legalityâ of the domestic violence gun restrictions, with several justices suggesting the Second Amendment wouldnât stop the government from banning âdangerousâ people from owning guns.
Whenever the Supreme Court rules on the Rahimi case, YoungBoy and federal prosecutors will have 14 days to file briefs on how the case should proceed.
Drake is pushing to be dismissed from the sprawling litigation over the 2021 disaster at Travis Scottâs Astroworld festival, arguing that he had nothing to do with planning the deadly event and canât be sued for simply showing up for a brief guest appearance.
More than 2,500 people have sued over the 2021 Astroworld event during which a crowd of fans rushed toward the stage during Scottâs Nov. 5 performance, leaving 10 dead and hundreds injured. Though the lawsuits mainly target Scott, Live Nation and other organizers, Drake was also named as a defendant in some cases because he appeared on stage during Scottâs deadly performance.
But in a motion filed Friday (Mar. 8) in Houston court, attorneys for Drake (real name Aubrey Drake Graham) argued that the star should not be involved in the case at all. They said he had no involvement in Astroworld beyond being asked to take the stage â and that festival organizers had âconfirmed under oath that Mr. Graham was not involved in any planning.â
Trending on Billboard
They also say that Drake was unaware of any safety problems before he took the stage. âMr. Graham did not receive any security briefings, was not informed of any crowd control issues, injuries or deaths in the crowd, or any stop show orders at any time either before or during his 14-minute performance.â
Instead, they say that Drake merely âarrived at the venue at approximately 7:30 PM and remained largely secluded backstage in a trailer until approximately 9:54 PM,â at which time he was âinformed to take the stage.â Â The star then âimmediately took the stage as requested, performed for approximately 14 minutes, and then exited the stage at 10:08 PM.â
The lawsuits over Astroworld claim that organizers were legally negligent in how they planned and conducted the event, including by failing to provide adequate security and emergency support. The cases, combined into one single large action in Houston, are seeking billions in potential damages. Much of the last two years has been spent in discovery, as the two sides exchange information and take depositions of key figures.
In Fridayâs motion, Drakeâs lawyers argued that the discovery process had resulted in âhundreds of hoursâ of depositions and âhundreds of thousands of pages of documents,â but that none of it had established that Drake could be held liable for negligence.
âPlaintiffs produce no evidence that Mr. Graham actually knew of any risk in the Festival site design and layout, competence or adequacy of Festival staffing and personnel, or emergency procedures such as show stop authority,â his lawyers wrote.
The alleged victims, represented by an array of plaintiffs law firms, will have a chance to respond to Drakeâs motion in the weeks ahead.
Attorneys for Bad Bunny have filed a lawsuit against a fan who posted videos from a recent concert to YouTube, arguing the Puerto Rican rapper was essentially forced to sue after the alleged bootlegger demanded that YouTube keep the clips online.
In a complaint filed Friday in federal court, attorneys for Bad Bunny (Benito MartĂnez Ocasio) claimed Eric Guillermo MadroĂąal Garrone posted videos covering ten songs from a February concert in Salt Lake City to his YouTube channel âMADforliveMUSIC,â infringing copyrights and âluringâ viewers to his page.
Worse yet, the lawsuit claims, when Bad Bunny submitted a takedown request to YouTube, Garrone responded with a formal counter-notice defending his right to post the clips. That move would legally require YouTube to repost them â unless, that is, Bad Bunny went to court to stop them.
Trending on Billboard
âDefendants have objected to the removal of the unauthorized bootlegs from YouTube, refused to agree not to re-post the unauthorized bootlegs, and requested that YouTube reinstate the unauthorized bootlegs,â Bad Bunnyâs attorneys wrote. âUnless enjoined by this court, defendants will continue to infringe Ocasioâs rights.â
Such disputes over online content happen all the time, but theyâre usually handled without a lawsuit. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, artists like Bad Bunny can file a takedown request to online platforms like YouTube, requiring the site to pull down the allegedly infringing material. Thatâs typically the end of the story, especially in cases of extensive footage of full songs.
But the DMCA also empowers internet users to object to such requests if they believe that theyâve made a âfair useâ of the materials in question â like, say, a news clip of a Bad Bunny concert that incidentally featured some of his music, or a parody video that mocked him by riffing on one of his songs.
In the case of Garroneâs footage, Bad Bunnyâs representatives filed a takedown notice for all ten of the clips from the Salt Lake City concert, arguing that they featured unauthorized recordings of huge hits like âYo Perreo Sola,â âMe Porto Bonito,â âDakitiâ and others. That notice initially succeeded in getting the clips pulled down.
But according to the lawsuit, Garrone then filed a DMCA counter-notice, requesting âreinstatement of the videos as soon as possible.â In a copy of the notice that was included in Bad Bunnyâs lawsuit, Garrone argued that he had made âlegitimate use of the contentâ and that the takedown notice âconstitutes a serious detriment to my informative and outreach activities.â
âThe removed videos also cover the start of the worldwide tour of Puerto Rican reggaeton artist Bad Bunny, with this being his first date out of the 47 planned across North America, constituting in itself a newsworthy event of high public interest and significant informative scope,â Garrone wrote. âIn my opinion, the artist also benefits from the dissemination of the content in his own promotion, as his show is carefully captured, conveying the reality of the moment without alterations or post-production in the content.â
Under the DMCA, that move would require YouTube to repost Garroneâs footage unless Bad Bunny filed a copyright infringement lawsuit within ten days. In an email included in the lawsuit, YouTube warned Bad Bunnyâs reps that âif we donât get a response from you, the content at issue may be reinstated.â
âYour response must include evidence that youâve taken legal action against the uploader to keep the content from being reinstated to YouTube,â the video site told Bad Bunnyâs reps. âUsually, evidence would include a lawsuit against the producer which names the YouTube URLs at issue and seeks a court order to restrain the alleged infringement.â
On Friday, Bad Bunnyâs lawyers did exactly that. They argued that Garroneâs videos âdo not qualify as fair useâ that would entitle them to reinstatement, and that they instead violated his rights.
âEach of the unauthorized bootlegs, both individually and collectively, negatively impacts the market for authorized uses of the Bad Bunny works by, among other things, luring YouTube viewers and associated advertising revenue away from authorized videos of the Bad Bunny Works,â the rapperâs attorneys wrote.
The lawsuit also accused Garrone of violating federal trademark laws by using Bad Bunnyâs name in promoting the clips, and of violating a federal law specifically aimed at bootlegging.
Reps for Bad Bunny did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Garrone could not immediately be located for comment, because his YouTube page has been disabled.
Sony Music is quickly fighting back against a discrimination lawsuit filed by a former assistant to Columbia Records chief executive Ron Perry over race-conscious hiring policies, saying the allegations are âcontradictory and falseâ and are designed to âharass her former employer.â
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The case, filed last week by Patria Paulino, claims that she was forced to resign after she pushed back on hiring practices that allegedly discriminated against white applicants. She claims she was âexplicitly told that she could only hire Black candidatesâ because Perry wanted bolster the appearance of diversity.
But in a blistering motion on Wednesday â an unusually fast response for any lawsuit â attorneys for Sony and Perry called the accusations âcontradictory and falseâ and asked a federal judge to toss them out of court.
Trending on Billboard
âShe alleges ⌠that defendants both discriminated against her because they preferred white employees but also constructively discharged her because she would not play along with their preference for non-white employees,â the labelâs lawyers wrote, adding the italics themselves for emphasis. âIn reality, plaintiff worked for Sony ⌠for less than five months, performed poorly, and was a willing participant in the entirely legal hiring practices she now alleges were discriminatory.â
Sonyâs response argued that far from being effectively fired, Paulino âvoluntarily resigned after receiving unfavorable performance feedback.â The label said she had filed her case simply âto harass her former employer and boss, who sought only to help her succeed in her job.â
Though it sharply criticized the merits of the case, Sonyâs filing actually attacked the case on simpler grounds: That the federal court where she filed the case cannot procedurally hear it. The company says there is not the required cross-state jurisdiction for the case to be handled in federal court.
In a statement to Billboard, Paulinoâs attorney Erica L. Shnayder stressed that Sonyâs motion âinvolves a procedural issueâ and âhas no bearing on the factual allegations which are supported by text messages.â Shnayder added: âThe case will proceed forward.â
Paulino sued on Friday (March 1), claiming that after she was hired by Sony in late 2022, she was repeatedly told she could not hire white candidates for a vacant assistant role in Perryâs office. She says that Perry had been hit with âmultiple racial discrimination complaints by former employeesâ and that he and the company wanted to âhave more color in his office.â
âAlthough numerous Caucasian candidates were qualified for the position, they were removed from consideration because of their race,â Paulinoâs lawyers wrote in their complaint.
The lawsuit came in the wake of a high-profile Supreme Court ruling last year that outlawed the use of race-conscious admissions in higher education, commonly known as âaffirmative action.â Though that ruling didnât directly deal with hiring or with the state laws at issue in Paulinoâs case, it has led to overall increased scrutiny of corporate practices aimed at diversity, equity and inclusion. Last week, CBS and Paramount were hit with a similar lawsuit, claiming they had broken the law by using diversity quotas that discriminated against white men.
Despite the directives to aim for diversity, Paulinoâs lawsuit claims she âcontinued to recommend qualified Caucasian applicantsâ for the role. At one point, when she advanced a particular white candidate, she says that another Sony employee told her in writing: âWe canât hire another white Jewish girl unfortunately.â Her lawyers say Sony conducted âshamâ interviews with candidates of all backgrounds, but in reality was determined to only hire a Black candidate.
In March 2023, Paulino says she was effectively forced to resign from her job. A Sony employee allegedly told her to do so because she âwas not really working out,â but she says the move was made âin retaliation for plaintiffâs opposition to defendantsâ discriminatory hiring practices.â
As noted in Sonyâs response, the lawsuit also includes other allegations beyond the hiring policies. In addition to claiming the company discriminated against white job seekers, Paulino (who says she is Hispanic) also claims that the company also discriminated against her on the basis of her race.
A spokesperson for Sony Music declined to comment on the lawsuitâs allegations, citing the pending nature of the case.
Attorneys for Linkin Park are pushing to end a lawsuit that accuses the band of refusing to pay royalties to an ex-bassist who briefly played with the band in the late 1990s, saying such claims have been repudiated for âover two decades.â
In a motion to dismiss the case filed Tuesday (Mar. 5), lawyers for Mike Shinoda and other Linkin Park members say Kyle Christnerâs lawsuit is ârife with defects.â Among them, they say, is that the statute of limitations on such claims has âlong since passed.â
âPlaintiff claims that defendants ⌠owe him money because he was a member of the band for, at most, eight months, 25 years ago, and was not paid for his âcontributionsâ,â writes the bandâs lead counsel, prominent music litigator Edwin F. McPherson. âHe asserts three claims, each of which fails.â
Trending on Billboard
Christner sued Linkin Park in November, claiming he had been a member of the band for several months in 1999 until he was âabruptly informedâ 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.
âChristner 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,â his lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
In addition to Shinoda, the lawsuit also named Linkin Parkâs other living members (Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson and Joseph Hahn), as well as its business entity, Machine Shop Entertainment, and the bandâs label, Warner Records.
The dispute was seemingly triggered by an anniversary re-release of the bandâs smash hit 2000 debut album Hybrid Theory, which holds the lofty distinction of being the best-selling rock album of the 21st century. Christener claims 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.
But in Tuesdayâs response, the bandâs lawyers say those allegations are deeply flawed. Among other issues, they say the lawsuit failed to clearly identify what songs Christener was involved with and instead relies on âopen-endedâ statements like that heâd âlikelyâ been involved in ânumerousâ songs. âDefendants cannot reasonably be expected to know how to respond to the [lawsuit] without knowing which copyrights are being addressed,â the complaint reads.
For the songs that were properly identified, the bandâs attorneys say the lawsuit is clearly barred by the statute of limitations. Copyright ownership disputes must be filed within three years, they say, adding that the band has obviously refused to acknowledge his claims for far longer than that.
âDefendants repudiated Plaintiffâs purported ownership in any and all of the works mentioned in the [lawsuit] more than three years before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit â and indeed for over two decades,â the bandâs lawyers wrote.
Even for the never-before-released songs, Linkin Park says Christener missed his window: âThe Box Set was released in October, 2020; this action was filed on November 8, 2023 â over three years later.â
Christenerâs attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment.
Manhattan prosecutors made the stunning decision Wednesday (March 6) to drop a criminal case against three men accused of trying to sell stolen notes linked to the Eaglesâ 1976 album Hotel California, with a judge saying Don Henley had âmanipulatedâ prosecutors.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
At a hearing Wednesday, a New York judge dismissed the charges after prosecutors alerted him that newly uncovered evidence cast doubt on whether Henleyâs notes had been stolen in the first place â the core defense advanced by Glenn Horowitz, Craig Inciardi and Edward Kosinski.
The disclosures came mid-way through a closely-watched criminal trial against the three men, in which Henley and longtime Eagles manger Irving Azoff had already testified. The proceedings had already run more than two weeks and had been expected to keep going until at least next week.
Trending on Billboard
The sudden reversal was sparked by Henley producing new evidence that had been previously withheld under attorney-client privilege. The new materials touched on whether a journalist hired in the 1970s to write a book about the Eagles, Ed Sanders, had legitimately come into possession of Henleyâs notes.
At a hearing in open court on Wednesday, Justice Curtis Farber sharply criticized Henley and Azoffâs conduct: âIt is now clear that both witnesses and their lawyers ⌠used the privilege to obfuscate and hide information that they believed would be damaging to their position that the lyric sheets were stolen.â
The judge said he was also troubled that prosecutors had been âmanipulatedâ into bringing the charges, and questioned why they had not more thoroughly vetted the accusations and the evidence. But he praised them for dropping the case once new evidence had come to light.
âAlbeit late, I commend the prosecution for refusing to allow itself or the courts to be further manipulated for the benefit of anyoneâs personal gain,â Farber said. âDistrict Attorney Bragg and the prosecutorial team here, while eating a slice of humble pie, are displaying the highest level of integrity in moving to dismiss the charges. I am impressed.â
In a statement to Billboard following Wednesdayâs hearing, Henleyâs attorney Dan Petrocelli said: âThe attorney-client privilege is a foundational guardrail in our justice system, and rarely, if ever, should you have to forsake it to prosecute or defend a case. As the victim in this case, Mr. Henley has once again been victimized by this unjust outcome. He will pursue all his rights in the civil courts.â
The Manhattan District Attorneyâs office declined to comment.
Horowitz, a rare book dealer, Inciardi, a curator at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and Kosinski, a memoriabila auctioneer, were all charged in 2022 with conspiracy over accusations that they tried to resell and hide the origin of the handwritten notes, penned by Henley during the creation of Hotel California. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr. said the trio had âmade up stories about the origin of the documents and their right to possess them so they could turn a profit.â
But the three men always maintained that they had done nothing wrong. Their core argument: That the alleged âthief,â Sanders, had legally obtained them in the 1970s in the process of writing a never-released book about the Eagles. If the notes were never stolen, the three argued, how could they be charged with re-selling stolen property?
The trial kicked off last month, with Inciardiâs attorney telling the judge that prosecutors had âdistorted the historyâ to charge innocent men and the DAâs office would be âapologizing at the end of this case.â Henley later testified that the he had not willingly given away the notes, saying they were âsomething very personal, very private.â
But at Wednesdayâs hearing, Justice Curtis said that Henley had recently handed over more than 6,000 new pages of emails and other disclosures that contained new information about how Sanders came to own the notes. Such âjarringly late disclosuresâ violated Horowitz, Inciardi and Kosinskiâs constitutional rights, the judge said.
âA review of these newly disclosed materials has demonstrated and highlighted Mr. Henley and Mr. Azoffâs use of the privilege to shield themselves from a thorough and complete cross-examination,â Justice Farber said at the hearing.
âAccordingly, indictment 72426 of â22 against each defendant, Glenn Horowitz, Craig Inciardi and Edward Kosinski is dismissed,â the judge said.
In a statement to Billboard, Horowitzâs attorney Jonathan Bach said: âWe are glad the DAâs office made the right decision and finally dropped this case. It never should have been brought. Mr. Horowitz looks forward to carrying on with his important work.â
Attorneys for the other two defendants did not return requests for comment.