Failure to Depose Rapper Rick Ross Could Cost Reed Smith in 50 Cent Malpractice Case
The judge said 50 Cent still has a long road in front of him to win a malpractice claim against Reed Smith.
March 06, 2019 at 03:34 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Just a lil' bit—more work. That's all Reed Smith's lawyers would have had to do in order to completely escape a malpractice claim brought by rap star and former client 50 Cent, according to a ruling from a Connecticut bankruptcy judge last week.
Namely, Reed Smith's lawyers needed to depose another rap star: Rick Ross.
Reed Smith remains entangled in a case stemming from a long-simmering feud between the two famous rappers. But under last week's ruling, the window for 50 Cent to succeed in his malpractice claim against the Am Law 100 firm was significantly narrowed.
The dispute dates back to 2009, when 50 Cent, whose real name is Curtis Jackson III, leaked a sex tape of a woman who has a child with Rick Ross, real name William A. Robert II, during a public feud between the two.
50 Cent's actions ultimately cost him $7 million, which a 2015 New York state court jury awarded the woman in the tape. That verdict led to a bankruptcy filing for Jackson.
Reed Smith had represented 50 Cent in that sex-tape case in New York until the eve of the 2015 trial, when the rapper dismissed the firm from the case citing “lack of effective representation and inadequate pre-trial preparation.”
After filing for bankruptcy, the “Just a Lil Bit” singer sued Reed Smith in 2017, asking for $32 million in total damages. Among his claims were that Rick Ross had posted the sex tape online before 50 Cent did and that Reed Smith had failed to depose the rival rapper as a way to enter that evidence into his defense.
That fact could have mitigated the damages 50 Cent paid in the New York case, said U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ann Nevins in Connecticut, ruling on Reed Smith's motion to dismiss.
But 50 Cent shouldn't read the opinion as if it's an excuse to sip Bacardi like it's his birthday quite yet.
Nevins, in her opinion last week, said 50 Cent has a long road in front of him to win a malpractice claim against Reed Smith. For one thing, Nevins said Ross' testimony that he first uploaded the video would not have had an effect on 50 Cent's liability under New York law.
“Mr. Jackson must, nonetheless, prove that the [d]efendants' conduct was negligent and that but for the [d]efendants' negligent conduct, Mr. Jackson would not have suffered some amount of actual and ascertainable damages,” Nevins wrote. “Failure or inability to do so may result in summary judgment entering in favor of the defendants.”
While Nevins dismissed the vast majority of 50 Cent's claims against Reed Smith, the judge also allowed the rapper to pursue an objection to a bankruptcy claim Reed Smith made against the rapper for more than $600,000 in unpaid legal bills. The rapper will be allowed to argue that those bills were excessive, the judge ruled.
A Reed Smith spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Imran H. Ansari, 50 Cent's lawyer in the case and an attorney with Baratta, Baratta & Aidala, as well as Drew A. Hillier, who represents Reed Smith and is an associate at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment.
50 Cent is no stranger to suing law firms. The rapper, businessman and actor in late 2016 secured a $14.5 million settlement from Seattle-based law firm Garvey Schubert Barer. He had sued Garvey Schubert for $75 million, accusing the firm of malpractice by not adequately representing him in business negotiations and in an arbitration proceeding with earphone manufacturer Sleek Audio LLC. That money helped the artist pay more than $22 million to have his bankruptcy case discharged in 2017.
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 AllLitigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
Why the Founders of IP Boutique Fisch Sigler Are Stepping Away From the Law and Starting an AI Venture
‘How to Succeed as a Trial Lawyer’: Talking Shop With Author and Veteran Litigator Stewart Edelstein
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
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