The grunge-pop diva we all know and love (or love to hate), Kesha, filed a lawsuit this week against her long-time producer claiming that he sexually and emotionally abused her for years. The producer, Lukasz Gottwald — “Dr. Luke” — was the one who discovered her at age 17 and convinced her to drop out of high school to pursue a career in music.

According to Kesha, the abuse started early and for the last ten years has kept her from moving to a different label, having control over her own music, and caused her to develop an eating disorder and subsequently enter rehab. She cites at least one count of rape following the consumption of a date rape drug, and alleges that Gottwald sexually assaulted her multiple times while forcing her to drink alcohol and take drugs. Gottwald has since filed an opposing suit, claiming defamation and breach of contract.

This is not the first time Kesha and Gottwald have been the subject of controversy. In 2013, around the time Kesha’s documentary “My Crazy Beautiful Life”  came out, fans started a petition to release Kesha from Gottwald’s control. The petition claims that  “Dr. Luke is controlling Ke$ha like a puppet, feeding her what she doesn’t want, and her creativity is dwindling and affected negativity (sic)” and that Kesha had little to no creative control over her most recent album.

In the short time since the lawsuits became public, skeptics have asked why Kesha waited so long to complain, or if she is just doing this to get out of her contract, and even saying she is lying because how can a sex symbol accuse someone of sexual assault?

These negative allegations aside, the majority of Kesha fans have shouted their support for the singer’s case, using the Twitter hashtag #StayStrongKesha.

An argument could be made for the idea that Kesha is making it all up to get out of her contract, but I just don’t think this is the case here. Her complaint has pages and pages filled with detailed and disturbing accounts of assault that span years. Accusing someone of sexual assault and rape are serious allegations that are not taken lightly, and if the victim is found to be lying the consequences are severe. Kesha is a smart woman, and by many accounts a near genius who was bound for lofty academic achievement before joining the music industry. Her intelligence does not protect her from being taken advantage of, since even the smartest men and women can be overwhelmed when in unfamiliar territory. It seems Kesha’s “mentor” knew this.

Saying that Kesha is lying because of her style, her sex symbol status, or her music is an argument that has no basis in logic. It stems from the idea that because someone dresses a certain way, or shares their sexuality more than others, they can’t cry “rape” when sexual predators target them.

It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, but Kesha and Gottwald obviously have some sort of toxic relationship that needs to end. Regardless of whether her claims are true or not, they need to be taken seriously. It doesn’t matter how famous a person is, or how long they waited to speak up; sexual assault is never okay and victims of it should be supported. Reacting negatively to cases like this discourages people in similar situations from coming forward, and encourages a society in which rape is covered up. Unfortunately, due to her fame and Gottwald’s counter case, Kesha’s fight has just begun.

Both Kesha’s lawsuit and Gottwald’s counter suit can be found here.

—

Morgan McMurray (@mcflurrybatman) is a freelance copywriter and blogger based in Savannah, Georgia. She spends her time writing, reading, and attempting to dance gracefully. She has also been known to binge-watch Netflix while knitting scarves.

Featured image courtesy of [rocor via Flickr]

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kesha Lawsuit: Victim Of Assault Or A Bad Contract? appeared first on Law Street.

PEA Films, Inc., (PEA) which owns the rights to Hollywood classics “The Good, the Bad and The Ugly,” “For a Few Dollars More,” and “Last Tango in Paris,” filed a lawsuit in late August against Metro-Goldwyn-Meyerm Inc. (MGM) to terminate MGM’s contracts with the three iconic western films. According to PEA’s complaint listed in The Hollywood Reporter, PEA claims that MGM did not give PEA “honest and accurate accounting statements, showing revenue and expenses, together with timely payment of the amounts due to PEA.” In addition to the accounting statements PEA seeks damages in excess of $5 million.

PEA and MGM have had their disagreements before. In the 1990s, PEA sued MGM twice for underpaying PEA, and the parties eventually settled in both lawsuits. The settlements, however, did not end the issue. The parties continued to fight over audit reports in the 2000s, in which MGM delayed its payments to PEA. The Hollywood Reporter states that “PEA suspects MGM’s method of accounting is no accident, asserting the defendant is engaged in a ‘Hollywood accounting catch me if you can’ process designed intentionally to keep for itself money rightfully due to PEA.” It seems that PEA has finally drawn the line and seeks to cancel MGM’s contracts.

Ronald S. Taft and Howard J. Schwartz of Wolff & Samson PC represents PEA.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Sean Davis via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hollywood Case to Watch: MGM May Lose Rights to Eastwood & Brando Classics appeared first on Law Street.

When I was 21 about to graduate from college, my cousin Katie, six at the time, promised me that she would come live with me when I got a job and be my maid because she really, really liked using her play broom and mop to clean. As a future law student, I realized something about this statement:

1. Katie told me she would do this (offer).
2. I said, ‘sounds good’ (acceptance).
3. My place would be clean, and without a maid it definitely wouldn’t be, and Katie would be able to fulfill her love of cleaning while simultaneously having a place to live (consideration).
4. We were both more than likely on the same page (mutuality).

Clearly, this was a legally enforceable oral contract. Sweet!

So, a few years later I moved to New Jersey to start my independent, adult life and told her she was required to come with me. Imagine my surprise when she, now nine, told me she no longer liked cleaning, and plus her parents probably wouldn’t let her come with me because they would miss her too much.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

I knew a breach when I saw one, and I told her I might have to sue; however, more pressing matters existed at the time, and I kind of forgot. But I was reminded of this story recently when I read an article about Jesse Dimmick.

Dimmick faced the same dilemma that I did with Katie: he made a very clear oral contract with a couple, and they just went and breached it. Unlike me, though, Dimmick had the strength and character to actually fight for his rights and sue.

Here is the story: Dimmick and an accomplice went to the Aurora motel in Colorado and met Michael Curtis; the men were all big druggies. The duo stabbed Curtis to death, stole his drugs and wallet, and ran away (Dimmick pled guilty to this so I feel free to leave off the “allegedly” here). The accomplice was then caught and arrested at another motel. This made Dimmick think that the cops might want to arrest him too, and he knew he had to do something to protect himself.

So he went to Kansas where he found some friends: Jared and Lindsay Rowley. He didn’t know the couple before he entered their house uninvited and held them at knifepoint, but something like that shouldn’t stand in the way of potential companionship.

To celebrate the newly formed friendship, the couple offered the fugitive food, drink, and a blanket. They then watched movies together until Dimmick fell asleep. This is where this story takes a turn for the worst: the Rowleys turned out to be very bad hosts. When their new pal fell asleep, they had the audacity to run to the cops and give away his location. The police came barging in to wake up the sleepy murderer from his much-needed nap, shooting him in the process.

Not even done with their betrayal, this horrible couple actually sued Dimmick for home invasion and stress! But don’t worry, Dimmick realized that the Rowleys were in the wrong and decided to make sure they never treated any other fugitive on the run from the law in a similar manner: he countersued.

Dimmick had realized the same thing that I had realized with Katie:

1. He told the couple that he would give them an undisclosed amount of money if they hid him (offer).
2. He said they agreed to the offer (acceptance).
3. He would have a safe haven to protect him since he “feared for his life,” and they would get money (consideration).
4. I’m sure both parties knew what they were doing here (mutuality).

Clearly, this was a legally enforceable oral contract. And Dimmick wanted $235,000 for this egregious act. After all, not only did they breach the contract, but that breach caused the poor man to get shot.

Strangely, the court decided to dismiss this lawsuit despite the strong case Dimmick presented. Then, to pour gas on the fire, Dimmick was first convicted of two counts of kidnapping and sentenced to eleven years then convicted of murder and given another 37 years.

I just don’t understand the court system. When a man with a clearly valid case like this one cannot win, what is the point in even trying? Horrible as this is to say, with this line of inappropriate judicial highhandedness, there is a chance I wouldn’t have even won my case against Katie despite the fact that I was clearly right.

I sympathize with Dimmick. It is hard to trust anyone these days, and the only solution seems to be to get everything in writing and probably also have it notarized. Next time Katie offers to work for me, I’ll have learned my lesson. I hope for his sake Dimmick will too. If some other inmate offers him protection for certain “other favors,” Dimmick should break out the pen and paper: I’d hate for him to lose another case orally.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free Advice: Oral Contracts Don’t Apply When You’re Held at Knifepoint appeared first on Law Street.

The MLB’s recent 65-game suspension of Ryan Braun has several important legal repercussions for both the league and the players involved in the Biogenesis scandal.  Although Braun will most likely avoid any criminal charges regarding the purchase of performance-enhancing drugs, it is important to note that the distribution, sale and use of illegal performance-enhancing substances is against federal drug trafficking and distribution laws.  In order to prevent such charges Braun will most likely refuse to answer questions about his statement of admission until after the statute of limitations passes.

Braun also faces the possibility of a defamation lawsuit from Dino Laurenzi Jr., the collector of his positive drug test in 2012, whom he publicly attacked after the test.  Braun stated that the testing process “broke down,” and that after the fact he “learned a lot of things” about his collector.  Despite Braun’s claims, evidence suggest that Laurenzi was following proper protocol throughout the test.  While Laurenzi may have some ground for a lawsuit, filing one would likely fail, as Braun never directly mentioned Laurenzi by name nor did he specify the “things” that he claimed to have learned about him.

Another important question concerns the Brewers’ ability to void Braun’s contract in light of his recent suspension and potentially contract-breaching actions.  According to his contract, Braun is entitled to $133 million over the next eight years as dictated by his 2011 extension.  Although he has been one of the best players in the league, the question of how much he benefited from performance-enhancing drugs remains.  The Uniform Player contract permits termination in the event a player “fails, refuses or neglects to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship,” which could easily be proven by his admission.  The primary obstacle that the Brewers face is the historic difficulty that teams have had trying to void contracts, sometimes with even more serious offenses.  As a result, they may decide to simply buy Braun out of his contract to save money rather than to void it altogether.

Lastly, Braun’s actions may have important implications for other players connected with the Biogenesis scandal, notably Alex Rodriguez.  Biogenesis director Tony Bosch has recently started cooperating with the MLB’s attorneys; however, his credibility may be harmed due to the league’s portrayal of him as a drug dealer in their lawsuit against the company.  Additionally, many argue that although Braun accepted his suspension without challenge, doing so does not create a precedent for the other players involved.

Although it has not stopped speculation, much remains to be interpreted by independent arbiters before penalties can be determined for related cases.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Paluch via Wikimedia Commons]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legal Consequences of Ryan Braun’s Suspension appeared first on Law Street.