Skip to main content

Everyone Can Agree 50 Cent Should Have Used Me

This is what I mean by it can be hard to enforce money judgments. Also, wow, that's a lot in hotel charges. 

From a NY Daily News article. After a trial in July, 50 Cent was found liable for posting a sex tape between himself and Lastonia Leviston online, in order to embarrass her and another rapper. 

Leviston got a $7 million verdict/judgment after the trial. And now has to try to enforce it. 50 filed for bankruptcy, so collecting on the judgment has now become difficult, and Ms. Leviston's lawyers have to fight things out in bankruptcy court.  

According to the article, 50's lawyers charged him $123,455.92 for defending the case, including $57,241.76 for hotel-room expenses in rooms that cost $1,000/night(!):
In a new court filing obtained by The News, Leviston asks the court to reject the $57,241.76 sought by Brewer for hotel fees because it includes charges for $1,000-per-night luxury rooms during a period stretching back into May.
Surely, both Ms. Leviston and 50 Cent would agree that 50 should have used this office to represent him. I don't know what the firm's hourly fees were, but I'm assuming mine are less. I'm also local and wouldn't need to stay in hotels. Maybe only during the trial. And even then I wouldn't stay in a room that cost more than $300/night. Okay, maybe $350/night and room service, but that's it.

Here's another article from TMZ, where they misspell the word "judgment". 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more