Federal Judge Tosses Rapper 50 Cent's 'In Da Club' Remix Suit, Appeal Expected
Rapper Rick Ross has won a big legal battle with rival rapper 50 Cent. 50 Cent's lawsuit against Ross regarding mixtape music was dismissed. There will be an appeal.
October 04, 2018 at 06:20 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit by former Farmington resident and renowned rapper 50 Cent who had sued rival rapper Rick Ross over the remixing of the hit “In Da Club.”
U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton of the District of Connecticut announced Monday, in a sealed document, that he was dismissing the three-year-old lawsuit in which 50 Cent had accused Rick Ross for using the 2003 Billboard-topping song on his “Renzel Remixes” mixtape. The sealed document was not made available, but attorneys for both rappers said the lawsuit had been dismissed.
Leron Rogers, Rick Ross' attorney, told the Connecticut Law Tribune on Thursday that if Eginton had ruled against his client “it would have opened a flood of litigation.”
“I spoke to my client and he is happy that he can create content and is not subject to some new rule for which there is no basis,” said Rogers, partner with the Atlanta-based Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith. “Curtis Jackson [also known as 50 Cent] tried to take the position that even though he does not own it [copyright or master recording of the song], he has a separate right of publicity claim. That is unheard of. No one has ever heard of that.”
Paul LiCalsi, one of 50 Cent's three attorneys, said Thursday he would make a motion to the court asking it to reconsider, a precursor to filing an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That motion would be made within 30 days, said LiCalsi, of the New York City-based Robins Kaplan. LiCalsi declined to elaborate on any other aspect of the case.
Rogers said, “50 Cent is very litigious and we anticipate the appeal. We think we will be successful in the appeal because 50 Cent does not own the recording and that is the main issue, He is the wrong party to bring the claim, He does not own the rights to the master recording or the underlying composition. This is a copyright case disguised as a right of publicity case.” The recording is owned by Shady/Aftermath Records.
Rogers added that while Eginton did not focus on the First Amendment in the sealed document, “that is another issue the Second Circuit could hang hits hat on. The First Amendment says my client can rap about whatever he wants to. We should win on the First Amendment issue alone. He had 50 Cent's voice on less than 30 seconds of the entire album, which was over 100 minutes long.”
The two rappers have feuded for years and, Rogers said, “I think this [lawsuit] was clearly retaliation for the $7 million jury award. That is what we think.”
Rogers was referring to a jury award that 50 Cent was hit with in 2015. The jury awarded the money to Lastonia Leviston, the mother of Rick Ross' children, for violating her privacy via an infamous “homemade sex tape.” Leviston had sued 50 Cent for privacy violations for posting a sex tape of her and her then-boyfriend Maurice Murray on his website in 2009. His face was blurred, Leviston's wasn't, and Jackson inserted himself on the video dressed as a pimp. 50 Cent later filed for Chapter 11 protection in New Haven.
Rogers said Ross “just wants to get past this legal issue with 50 Cent. No one wants to be involved in litigation. He has a new album coming out and is busy putting the finishing touches on it.”
In addition to LiCalsi, 50 Cent is also represented by attorneys Sherli Furst, a colleague of LiCalis's, and James Berman of the Bridgeport-based Zeisler & Zeisler.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Seek to Avoid Jurisdiction Fight in IVF Case, Challenge CooperSurgical in Connecticut
4 minute readPike Fuels Agrees to Pay $2 Million Settlement to Resolve Alleged New Haven Environmental Violations
2 minute readHigh-Flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
2 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Trending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250