Snoop Dogg, one of the defendants looking to dismiss a $107 million lawsuit filed by Lydia Harris. Photo Credit: Bruce Baker
A federal court has officially ordered a stay in Lydia Harris’ $107 million lawsuit against Snoop Dogg, Universal Music, Death Row Records, and several others.
Judge David Hittner just recently signed off on the defendants’ stay request pending the resolution of their respective dismissal pushes. We covered one of those pushes in late April, when Snoop Dogg and Death Row urged the court to toss the suit and to label the pro se plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
Long story short, Harris is the ex-wife of Death Row co-founder Michael Harris and, following Snoop Dogg’s 2022 acquisition of the label, says she’s owed big for her purported stake.
That’s despite the $107 million default judgement that a court ordered Suge Knight to pay her years back. (Knight is behind bars on a voluntary manslaughter conviction.) Per Harris, strategic bankruptcy maneuvering and asset-concealment efforts prevented her from collecting the sizable sum.
As noted, however, Snoop and his team are refuting the position in no uncertain terms. Meanwhile, attorney David Kenner, also a defendant, is himself urging the court to toss the suit for failure to state a claim – as are Universal Music, Lucian Grainge, and Jimmy Iovine in a different motion yet.
And at least as of early May, Harris was looking to bring even more defendants into the fold.
“Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a Supplemental and Amended Complaint to add the following defendants: Marion ‘Suge’ Knight, [attorney] Dermont Givens [sic], and [hip-hop label exec] Alan Grunblatt,” she wrote at the time.
“These individuals are believed to have played a central role in orchestrating fraudulent Bankruptcy fraud in addition to the contrived pretrial summary judgement filings,” proceeded Harris.
It’s against this backdrop that Judge Hittner granted the above-mentioned stay request.
Though the corresponding order doesn’t dive into the precise reasons for approval, it does note that a previously scheduled pretrial conference is on ice while the dismissal motions play out.
As things stand, we’ll have to wait and see where said motions go from here; related updates hadn’t made their way into the docket at the time of writing. Also silent on the overarching suit is Harris, who has already addressed the case in lengthy interviews.
But she doesn’t seem to have publicly weighed in as of late. Plus, her Instagram profile appears to have been set to private.
Recommended Comments
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.