Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Music

      Jay-Z, Accused in Suit of Raping Minor With Sean Combs, Calls It Blackmail

      by

      The entertainer said the suit, which accuses him of assaulting an unnamed 13-year-old girl in 2000, was an effort to gain settlement money by putting forward “idiotic” claims.Jay-Z was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl with Sean Combs in a lawsuit filed Sunday by an unnamed plaintiff. He vehemently denied the allegation and accused the lawyer who brought the suit of trying to blackmail him with false claims.The allegations against the billionaire rapper and hip-hop mogul came as part of the flurry of litigation against Mr. Combs, who is facing federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges and at least 30 lawsuits accusing him of sexual misconduct. One of those lawsuits, filed in October, accused Mr. Combs and an anonymous celebrity of raping the teen at an after-party following the MTV Video Music Awards in New York in 2000.On Sunday, the plaintiff amended the lawsuit to name Jay-Z as the other celebrity, asserting in court papers that he and Mr. Combs took turns raping her after she arrived at the party and drank part of a drink that made her feel “woozy and lightheaded.” Jay-Z called the claims “idiotic” and said that he came from a world where “we protect children.” Mr. Combs has denied all allegations of sexual assault and misconduct and has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges.The lawsuit was filed by Tony Buzbee, a personal injury lawyer in Houston, who has filed at least 20 sex assault lawsuits against Mr. Combs and used a phone hotline, Instagram and a news conference to find clients.In an extensive response, Jay-Z, 55, said he had received a demand letter from Mr. Buzbee appearing to seek a settlement but that the letter had the opposite effect: “It made me want to expose you for the fraud you are in a VERY public fashion. So no, I will not give you ONE RED PENNY!!” the statement read.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Music

      Drake Accuses Universal of Boosting Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’

      by

      The Canadian rapper filed legal papers on Monday in New York and Texas accusing his record label of promoting “Not Like Us” ahead of Drake’s tracks.Drake’s war of words with Kendrick Lamar, through a vicious back-and-forth of diss tracks, generated some of the biggest headlines in rap this year.And now it has landed in court.On Monday, lawyers for Drake filed legal papers in New York and Texas accusing the Universal Music Group — the giant record company behind both rappers — of operating an elaborate scheme to to promote Lamar’s “Not Like Us” at the expense of Drake’s music, using bots to drive up clicks on streaming services and payola to influence radio stations.In documents filed in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan on behalf of one of Drake’s companies, Frozen Moments, the rapper’s lawyers said that Universal “launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves with a song, ‘Not Like Us,’ in order to make that song go viral, including by using ‘bots’ and pay-to-play agreements.”In a separate filing in Bexar County, Texas, lawyers for Drake — this time filing under his real name, Aubrey Drake Graham — said they were considering a defamation claim against Universal over Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” the hit song that represented the climax of Drake and Lamar’s rap war.In that song, Lamar took various swipes at Drake — including calling Drake and his crew “certified pedophiles.” Universal, Drake’s filing said, “could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed,” but chose to put it out instead.“UMG knew that the song itself attacked the character of another one of UMG’s most prominent artists, Drake,” the filing said, “by falsely accusing him of being a sex offender, engaging in pedophilic acts, harboring sex offenders, and committing other criminal sexual acts.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      Jonathan Majors Settles Assault and Defamation Lawsuit by Ex-Girlfriend

      by

      Mr. Majors was criminally convicted last year of assaulting and harassing Grace Jabbari, who then sued him in March.The actor Jonathan Majors and his ex-girlfriend Grace Jabbari have settled the assault and defamation lawsuit that she filed against him in March, a lawyer for Ms. Jabbari announced on Friday.Mr. Majors, a formerly ascendant Hollywood star known for his work in “Creed III” and “The Last Black Man in San Francisco,” was criminally convicted last year of assaulting and harassing Ms. Jabbari, a British dancer and movement coach who was his girlfriend for two years. In April, he was sentenced to probation and a year of domestic violence counseling.The civil suit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, was dropped in a court filing on Thursday by lawyers for both sides. The lawsuit said Mr. Majors had been violent toward Ms. Jabbari in New York, Los Angeles and London, including in one instance that left her with a head injury. It also said that he had repeatedly threatened to kill her.“Grace Jabbari has exhibited tremendous courage throughout this very long and difficult process,” her lawyer, Brittany Henderson, said in a statement. “As a result of her commitment to justice, the lawsuit that she filed against Jonathan Majors has been favorably settled. We hope that she can finally put this chapter behind her and move forward with her head held high.”Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.A lawyer for Mr. Majors did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In an interview after Mr. Majors’s criminal conviction, the actor told ABC, speaking of Ms. Jabbari, that “I was reckless with her heart, not with her body.” He added, “My hands have never struck a woman.”Ms. Jabbari’s lawsuit said that his interview was part of what it called “an extensive media campaign smearing” her. His goal, the suit said, was “convincing the world that Grace is not a victim of domestic abuse.”In February, in an article in The New York Times, two other previous girlfriends of Mr. Majors accused him of being controlling and emotionally abusive, and one accused him of being physically violent. Mr. Majors denied that he physically abused anyone.After Mr. Majors was convicted, Marvel Studios parted ways with the actor, who had been the villain Kang the Conqueror in “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” with plans to reprise that role. Over the summer, Mr. Majors was cast as the lead in an independent movie, his first role since the conviction. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Music

      Most of Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’s Accusers Are Unnamed. Can They Stay That Way?

      by

      The debate over anonymity in civil and criminal sex abuse cases weighs the principle of a fair trial with the desire to protect accusers’ privacy.As Sean Combs faces numerous anonymous accusers in both civil and criminal court who say he sexually abused them, his lawyers have argued that such anonymity is an unfair impediment to his defense.In more than half of the 27 sexual abuse civil suits against the music mogul, the plaintiffs filed under the pseudonyms Jane Doe or John Doe, drawing opposition from Mr. Combs’s lawyers.Similarly, in his criminal case, where he has been charged with racketeering and sex trafficking, the defense has argued that prosecutors should have to reveal the names of the alleged victims who are part of their case. The only accuser listed in the indictment was identified as “Victim 1,” though prosecutors say there are multiple.“Without clarity from the government,” his lawyers wrote in a letter to the presiding judge, “Mr. Combs has no way of knowing which allegations the government is relying on for purposes of the indictment.”Sexual assault accusers have long sought anonymity in the courts and in the media. The flood of complaints during the #MeToo movement ushered in a much broader societal understanding of their fears of retribution and social stigmatization, and protocols in the American media that withhold accusers’ names became even more entrenched — a commitment illustrated last month when the country superstar Garth Brooks identified an anonymous accuser in court papers. Few, if any, media outlets published her name.Securing anonymity in civil court can be much more challenging.So far, at least two judges in Federal District Court in Manhattan have rejected requests from plaintiffs to remain anonymous in lawsuits against Mr. Combs, who has denied sexually abusing anyone.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Movies

      What to Know About ‘The Apprentice,’ the Controversial Trump Biopic

      by

      The film, now available on demand, followed a thorny path to distribution — including the threat of a lawsuit by its subject.If you know one thing about the new Donald Trump biopic “The Apprentice,” it’s likely this: The former president doesn’t want you to see it.The drama, which debuted to mostly positive reviews at the Cannes Film Festival in May, follows a young Trump (Sebastian Stan) as he meets — and falls under the spell of — the lawyer and political fixer Roy Cohn (Jeremy Strong); brashly courts, then quickly tires of his first wife, Ivana Trump (Maria Bakalova), and becomes single-mindedly obsessed with winning, at everything, at all costs.Despite praise for Stan and Strong, the film, directed by the Iranian filmmaker Ali Abbasi and written by the author Gabriel Sherman, struggled to secure distribution, and Trump threatened to file a lawsuit to block its release.But in August, Briarcliff Entertainment, a distributor founded by Tom Ortenberg, a producer on “Spotlight” and “W,” acquired the theatrical rights and announced plans to release the film ahead of the presidential election. After debuting in cinemas on Oct. 10 (again drawing largely positive reviews but just $3.5 million at the box office), it is debuting on demand this weekend.Here’s what to know about the offscreen saga and the onscreen story.What period in Trump’s life does the film cover?It chronicles Trump’s younger years as a New York real estate developer, though the title comes from the TV series Trump later hosted for 14 seasons.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Music

      Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’s Empire: Winnowed, but Still Weighty

      by

      The music mogul’s business portfolio has shrunk, in part because of multiple sex abuse allegations, but his wealth remains a critical factor as his criminal case unfolds.In arguing to keep Sean Combs in jail until his trial on federal racketeering and sex trafficking charges, prosecutors have portrayed him as a lavishly wealthy, well-connected music mogul who would be well positioned to flee. In court papers, prosecutors cited media reporting that estimated his wealth at close to a billion dollars.But as Mr. Combs’s reputation has unraveled amid a wave of high-profile lawsuits and criminal charges, so has his business portfolio. Once a major brand ambassador and chairman of a media platform, he has been forced to withdraw from those roles. In June, several months before Mr. Combs was indicted, Forbes estimated his net worth at $400 million, down from $740 million in 2019.Mr. Combs’s fortune has been at the forefront of his public persona since the 1990s, when the success of his hip-hop and R&B label, Bad Boy Entertainment, meant he was known as much for his high-flying, champagne-popping lifestyle as the music he produced.One year ago, Mr. Combs, who is known as Diddy, was at the helm of an ever-growing portfolio: He was a record label founder, a liquor promoter, a cable TV and digital media chairman, a philanthropist and a fashion executive with a label called Sean John.Mr. Combs has gained prominence as a record label executive, a liquor promoter and the founder of a cable TV and digital media platform.From left: Theo Wargo/WireImage, via Getty Images; Stan Honda/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images; Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for Revolt TV“He was a larger-than-life marketer,” said Dessie Brown Jr., an entertainment consultant who long viewed Mr. Combs as a model for building a career. “He always talked about being like a ringleader in a circus.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Music

      Met Opera and Singer Injured in Onstage Fall Settle Decade-Old Lawsuit

      by

      Wendy White, a veteran mezzo-soprano, was performing when she fell in 2011. Her suit, which claimed negligence, had been one of the company’s longest-running court cases.More than a decade after she was injured in a fall from a platform on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera while singing in a production of “Faust,” the veteran mezzo-soprano Wendy White has settled her lawsuit against the company.Ms. White, who says she suffered nerve and muscle damage that prevented her from singing professionally after the accident in 2011, had been expected to return to court this month. But she recently reached a deal with the Met and a scheduled trial was called off. Neither side disclosed details.“Under the terms of the confidential agreement we’re not permitted to comment,” the Met said in a statement. A lawyer for Ms. White declined to comment.The settlement brings to an end one of the longest-running legal disputes in the Met’s 141-year history. The case dragged on amid rounds of legal filings and appeals — and efforts by New York State lawmakers to help Ms. White. She was injured during the Dec. 17, 2011, performance of Gounod’s opera about selling one’s soul to the devil while singing the role of Marthe.Ms. White was walking from a backstage staircase to an elevated platform onstage when a piece of scenery broke and the platform collapsed. She fell eight feet. She did not break any bones, but was taken to the hospital for injuries.The Met said at the time that her injuries did not initially appear to be serious. But Ms. White, who sang more than 500 performances at the Met after making her debut as Flora in Verdi’s “La Traviata” in 1989, never appeared on its stage again.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Movies

      Lawsuit Accusing Roman Polanski of 1973 Rape Is Settled

      by

      The suit accused Mr. Polanski of giving a minor alcohol before sexually assaulting her. A lawyer for the director said on Wednesday that the case was settled over the summer but gave no details.The film director Roman Polanski will no longer face a civil trial next year over accusations that he sexually assaulted a teenage girl more than five decades ago, after reaching an out-of-court settlement with his accuser that led to the dismissal of the lawsuit, lawyers for both sides said on Wednesday.The lawsuit against Mr. Polanski, 91, was filed in the Superior Court in Los Angeles County in June 2023 and had been scheduled to go to trial in August 2025. The terms of the settlement were not immediately disclosed.In the lawsuit, the accuser, identified only as Jane Doe, says she met Mr. Polanski at a party in 1973, when she was a minor. Months later, she met him a second time at his home in Benedict Canyon, where he gave her two shots of tequila, the lawsuit says. Later they went to dinner in Los Angeles, where she was given more alcohol and eventually became sick, before going back to his house, the lawsuit says.“Plaintiff remembers waking up in defendant’s bed with him lying in the bed next to her,” the lawsuit reads. “He told her that he wanted to have sex with her.” The plaintiff, though groggy, told him, “No” and, “Please don’t do this,” the lawsuit says. He ignored her, removed her clothes, and “proceeded to rape her causing her tremendous physical and emotional pain and suffering,” according to the suit.Mr. Polanski denied the allegations when the suit was filed.Mr. Polanski’s lawyer, Alexander Rufus-Isaacs, said in a statement that the case was settled over the summer and that the lawsuit had been formally dismissed. He declined to disclose details of the settlement.Gloria Allred, the lawyer for the woman, confirmed the settlement in a brief statement, saying that the terms had been “agreed to by the parties to their mutual satisfaction.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More