ReportWire

Tag: Plaintiff

  • L.A. County sheriff investigating new claims that Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs assaulted a music producer

    [ad_1]

    Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is serving four years in federal prison for using prostitutes in “freak-offs,” is under investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in connection with new allegations of sexual assault. A record producer alleges Combs assaulted him on two occasions.

    The sheriff’s Special Victims Unit initiated the probe because one of the incidents occurred in East Los Angeles, according to Nicole Nishida, a department spokeswoman. The producer reported the incidents to police in Largo, Fla.

    Florida-based music producer John Hay revealed in media interviews that he was the “John Doe” plaintiff from a civil lawsuit filed in July alleging assault.

    The producer, who was not named by law enforcement investigating the allegations, alleged he was subjected to sex acts in 2020 and 2021 while working on a remix project of music by Biggie Smalls, a.k.a. Christopher Wallace, which put him into contact with Bad Boy Records and company executive Combs.

    A spokesman for Combs did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment on the investigation.

    The lawsuit states that, in December 2020, the producer was at a warehouse in Los Angeles that housed some of Notorious B.I.G.’s clothing. The items were being donated to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame later that year, when Biggie would eventually be inducted.

    Combs “provided drugs to everyone present. Everyone there was running around the warehouse and tripping on the drugs,” the lawsuit alleges. Combs “started watching porn on his cell phone, grabbed one of Biggie’s shirts off a rack, and began to masturbate with it in front of the plaintiff,” the suit states.

    Combs subsequently threw the shirt over the producer’s lap and arm, laughed and said “Rest in peace, Biggie” before leaving the room.

    In an incident in March 2021, the plaintiff claims that he was set up. He states in the lawsuit he was lured to a meeting by Biggie’s son, Christopher “CJ” Wallace Jr., and music producer Willie Mack.

    But upon his arrival, his head was covered, and Combs appeared and began yelling and ordered everyone to leave, the lawsuit alleges. Combs then allegedly attempted “to force plaintiff to perform oral copulation on Combs, while plaintiff’s head was still covered.”

    “I’m pushing for criminal charges to be filed against Combs at a state and federal level,” Hay told ShockYa earlier this month in an interview where he stated he was the civil suit plaintiff.

    According to a police report first obtained last month by People magazine, Hay reported the allegations on Sept. 20 of this year to Largo, Fla., police.

    Gary Dordick, the producer’s lawyer, said “we intend to present out client’s case to a jury in California and we are confident that the truth will prevail.” Dordick said in a message to The Times that he would not comment further given that a defamation lawsuit was filed last week by Wallace.

    Wallace, the son of Biggie Smalls and singer Faith Evans, sued Hay for defamation in a Florida federal court last week, calling Hay’s recent interviews “a calculated smear campaign” that included false statements that he attended Combs’ so-called freak-off parties and “conspired to lure Hay to a location where Combs purportedly assaulted him.”

    An attorney for Mack could not immediately be reached for comment.

    Wallace says in his defamation action that Hay worked on the remix project, titled “Ready to Dance,” with Wallace and Mack in 2020. A single was released, but the remaining songs were not, due to a lack of interest.

    According to the suit, Hay was upset over the decision not to release the music he worked on and began accusing Mack of “inappropriate and abusive behavior” in 2021. But Hay never made an assault allegation, the suit claims.

    Combs is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Fort Dixon, a New Jersey low-security federal penitentiary.

    [ad_2]

    Richard Winton

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rules Trump may remove transgender markers from new passports

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

    By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

    “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

    “The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances — even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

    “Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

    Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

    The Supreme Court put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

    U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

    In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and nonbinary persons.

    Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

    The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

    The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to the Supreme Court last month.

    They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

    “By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely… [It] undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

    But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

    “Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Appeals court rules Trump administration can end legal protections for more than 400,000 migrants

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration can end legal protections for around 430,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest twist in a legal fight over Biden-era policies that created new and expanded pathways for people to live in the United States, generally for two years with work authorization. The Trump administration announced in March it was ending the humanitarian parole protections.“We recognize the risks of irreparable harm persuasively laid out in the district court’s order: that parolees who lawfully arrived in this country were suddenly forced to choose between leaving in less than a month — a choice that potentially includes being separated from their families, communities, and lawful employment and returning to dangers in their home countries,” the judges wrote. “But absent a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of such irreparable harms cannot, by itself, support a stay.”In a two-page ruling, the court lifted a stay issued by a district court and is allowing the administration to end humanitarian parole for those groups while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling Friday is a victory for the Trump administration, but doesn’t change anything on the ground.Esther Sung, the legal director of Justice Action Center, a co-counsel in the case, said the ruling “hurts everyone.”“People who came here from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did everything the government asked of them, and the Trump administration cruelly and nonsensically failed to hold up the government’s end of the bargain,” Sung said. “While we are deeply disappointed by this decision, we will continue to advocate zealously for our clients and class members as the litigation continues.”A district court issued a stay in April halting the administration’s decision, but the Supreme Court lifted the lower court order at the end of May with little explanation.The Trump administration had argued the appeals court should follow the Supreme Court and reverse the district court ruling.The protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference, the Justice Department said in a court filing.Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that ending parole on a case-by-case basis would be a “gargantuan task” that would slow the government’s efforts to press for the removal of the migrants.“The Secretary’s discretionary rescission of a discretionary benefit should have been the end of the matter,” lawyers for the government wrote in their brief.Plaintiffs, including people who benefited from the legal protections, urged the appeals court to endorse the district court ruling, which found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not categorically end protections for these groups, but instead had to evaluate each case individually. They also cited the district court’s finding that Noem ignored the humanitarian concerns that led to the legal protections in the first place.“The district court applied the law correctly and did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Secretary Noem’s action inflicted irreparable injury on the class members (among others) and that the public interest and balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of preliminary relief,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in a brief.Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people. Since taking office, he has sought to dismantle Biden administration policies that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the U.S.The Trump administration’s decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said in court papers, calling it “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.”

    BOSTON —

    A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration can end legal protections for around 430,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

    The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest twist in a legal fight over Biden-era policies that created new and expanded pathways for people to live in the United States, generally for two years with work authorization. The Trump administration announced in March it was ending the humanitarian parole protections.

    “We recognize the risks of irreparable harm persuasively laid out in the district court’s order: that parolees who lawfully arrived in this country were suddenly forced to choose between leaving in less than a month — a choice that potentially includes being separated from their families, communities, and lawful employment and returning to dangers in their home countries,” the judges wrote. “But absent a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of such irreparable harms cannot, by itself, support a stay.”

    In a two-page ruling, the court lifted a stay issued by a district court and is allowing the administration to end humanitarian parole for those groups while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling Friday is a victory for the Trump administration, but doesn’t change anything on the ground.

    Esther Sung, the legal director of Justice Action Center, a co-counsel in the case, said the ruling “hurts everyone.”

    “People who came here from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did everything the government asked of them, and the Trump administration cruelly and nonsensically failed to hold up the government’s end of the bargain,” Sung said. “While we are deeply disappointed by this decision, we will continue to advocate zealously for our clients and class members as the litigation continues.”

    A district court issued a stay in April halting the administration’s decision, but the Supreme Court lifted the lower court order at the end of May with little explanation.

    The Trump administration had argued the appeals court should follow the Supreme Court and reverse the district court ruling.

    The protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference, the Justice Department said in a court filing.

    Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that ending parole on a case-by-case basis would be a “gargantuan task” that would slow the government’s efforts to press for the removal of the migrants.

    “The Secretary’s discretionary rescission of a discretionary benefit should have been the end of the matter,” lawyers for the government wrote in their brief.

    Plaintiffs, including people who benefited from the legal protections, urged the appeals court to endorse the district court ruling, which found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not categorically end protections for these groups, but instead had to evaluate each case individually. They also cited the district court’s finding that Noem ignored the humanitarian concerns that led to the legal protections in the first place.

    “The district court applied the law correctly and did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Secretary Noem’s action inflicted irreparable injury on the class members (among others) and that the public interest and balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of preliminary relief,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in a brief.

    Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people. Since taking office, he has sought to dismantle Biden administration policies that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the U.S.

    The Trump administration’s decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said in court papers, calling it “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Celebrity A’ accused of raping 13-year-old during a VMAs afterparty hosted by Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs, lawsuit alleges

    ‘Celebrity A’ accused of raping 13-year-old during a VMAs afterparty hosted by Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs, lawsuit alleges

    [ad_1]

    When Sean “Diddy” Combs was charged last month in a federal sex-trafficking probe, it unleashed a wave of lawsuits detailing how the music industry mogul allegedly drugged and assaulted men and women for years undeterred.

    But the piecemeal allegations leveled in the criminal and civil cases stopped short of answering an essential question that’s been hinted at by attorneys, investigators and internet sleuths: Who else was involved?

    This week, for the first time, celebrities other than Combs have been accused in civil lawsuits of participating in assaults during parties hosted by the Bad Boy Records founder. The stars, however, have not been identified by name.

    A federal lawsuit filed this week in the Southern District of New York involves a woman, identified as Jane Doe, who says she was 13 when she was raped by Combs and a male celebrity, identified only as Celebrity A, while a female celebrity, referred to as Celebrity B in court papers, watched.

    The woman alleges in the legal filing that the night of Sept. 7, 2000, began with her outside Radio City Music Hall in New York City, trying to talk her way into the Video Music Awards. She approached several limousine drivers, including one who claimed to work for Combs, she said.

    “He told her that Combs liked younger girls and she ‘fit what Diddy was looking for,’” the lawsuit states. The driver invited her to an afterparty and told her to return later that night.

    When she did, the driver took her to a large white house with a gated U-shaped driveway and, once inside, she was told to sign a nondisclosure agreement, the suit says. A luxurious party was unfolding inside. Waitstaff carried trays of drinks, loud music blasted throughout the house and partygoers were snorting cocaine and using marijuana, according to the lawsuit.

    After finishing one drink — a concoction of orange juice, cranberry juice and something bitter — she says she began to feel lightheaded and found an empty bedroom to rest. Combs walked into the room with two celebrities. He approached her “with a crazed look in his eyes, grabbed her and said ‘You are ready to party!’” the lawsuit states.

    The unnamed male celebrity raped the girl, while Combs and the unidentified female celebrity allegedly watched. Combs then raped the girl as the other two celebrities watched, according to the lawsuit.

    Combs’ attorneys denied the latest allegations in a statement.

    “The press conference and 1-800 number that preceded [Sunday’s] barrage of filings were clear attempts to garner publicity,” they said. “Mr. Combs and his legal team have full confidence in the facts, their legal defenses, and the integrity of the judicial process. In court, the truth will prevail: that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted anyone — adult or minor, man or woman.”

    Attorney Tony Buzbee, who is representing more than 100 people who say they were victimized by Combs, has previously vowed to name celebrities who had been involved in the alleged sexual abuse. He said during a news conference last month that the names contained in the suits would “shock.”

    “Many of you came here thinking or hoping or perhaps believing that I may start naming names,” Buzbee said last month. “That day will come, but it won’t be today.”

    But it hasn’t happened.

    Several sources involved in representing Hollywood A-listers told The Times they feared their clients being implicated even by mere association with Combs. Many have clients who went to Combs’ parties.

    Buzbee, they allege, is playing on the fear of implication. The Texas-based attorney has already claimed to have made deals with “a handful” of notable individuals who could be linked to Combs.

    Buzbee did not return a phone call from The Times seeking additional comment.

    David Ring, who has represented sex crime survivors in some of California’s biggest cases, said that not naming celebrities who may have been involved in wrongdoing gives the victims’ lawyers leverage to negotiate settlements.

    “If they are publicly identified, the celebrity will likely dig in and deny all charges and fight until the end,” he said. “However, if they are given the opportunity to quickly settle and prevent their name from ever being announced publicly, many of them will jump at that opportunity.”

    In another lawsuit Buzbee filed this week against Combs, a personal trainer identified only as John Doe alleges he was drugged and forced to perform oral sex on an unnamed male celebrity during an awards show afterparty at Combs’ house in the Hollywood Hills in June 2022.

    “While in and out of consciousness, individuals at the party forced Plaintiff into sexual acts with both men and woman. Plaintiff’s physical disposition made it impossible for him to reject their advances or otherwise control his body. These individuals, including Combs, essentially passed Plaintiff’s drugged body around like a party favor for their sexual enjoyment,” the lawsuit states.

    U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ordered Buzbee this week to file a motion seeking to allow the personal trainer to proceed in the case using a pseudonym. He also required a declaration to be filed under seal “disclosing his identity and the identity of any party that is not named in the complaint to the court.”

    Combs, 54, remains in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn and has pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has denied multiple abuse claims that have been outlined in at least 18 civil lawsuits filed against him in the past year.

    The criminal case laid out by federal prosecutors alleged an extensive network that would have required multiple people to recruit victims, organize the sex performances called “freak-offs,” clean up and cover tracks to avoid outside scrutiny.

    “Combs did not do this all on his own,” Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in announcing the charges. “He used his business and employees of that business and other close associates to get his way.”

    Federal prosecutors said early this month that Combs may face a superseding indictment that would open the door to more charges for Combs and possibly other defendants.

    [ad_2]

    Hannah Fry, Richard Winton

    Source link

  • Judge halts construction of massive warehouse project after scores of homes demolished

    Judge halts construction of massive warehouse project after scores of homes demolished

    [ad_1]

    A Southern California developer must halt construction of a controversial industrial park in San Bernardino County that has displaced scores of homes, after a judge found flaws in the project’s environmental impact report.

    County supervisors in late 2022 green-lighted an industrial real estate firm’s proposal to remove 117 homes and ranches in rural Bloomington to make way for more than 2 million square feet of warehouse space. Several environmental and community groups sued the county soon after, alleging that the approval of the Bloomington Business Park violated numerous regulations set out in state environmental and housing laws.

    Nearly two years later, and after more than 100 homes have already been leveled, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Donald Alvarez ruled last week that the county’s review of the project did not conform with the state law intended to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential environmental harms of proposed developments. He said construction of the warehouse project must stop while the county redoes the report in a manner that complies with the law.

    A San Bernardino County spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling because it is the subject of active litigation. The developer, Orange County-based Howard Industrial Partners, said it would appeal portions of the ruling and predicted that delays to the overall project would be short-lived.

    The 213-acre industrial park came with trade-offs familiar to communities in California’s Inland Empire that are being asked to shoulder the sprawling distribution centers integral to the storage, packaging and delivery of America’s online shopping orders.

    The environmental impact report found that the development would have “significant and unavoidable” impacts on air quality. But it also would bring jobs to the majority Latino community of 23,000 residents, and the developer pledged to provide millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements.

    And because the warehouse project would be about 50 feet from Zimmerman Elementary, the developer agreed to pay $44.5 million to the Colton Joint Unified School District in a land swap that would usher in a state-of-the-art school nearby.

    For Bloomington residents and community advocates who have been fighting the explosive growth of the warehouse industry in the Inland Empire, the court’s decision is being viewed as a victory.

    Ana Gonzalez, executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said her organization has challenged a couple of warehouse approvals annually for the past five years. The lawsuits typically end in settlements that award the community extra protections, such as air filters and HVAC systems for nearby homes. She said she’s never before seen construction stopped in its tracks.

    “To see the way this one turned out just gives us hope, and it ignites that resilience that our community needed to keep fighting,” Gonzalez said.

    Still, she said, the timing is bittersweet.

    “I don’t know at this point if we could ever get the homes that were there back,” Gonzalez said. “To see the community being wiped out in Bloomington is really heartbreaking.”

    The ruling raises broader questions about the rigor of San Bernardino County’s process for approving warehouse projects, which have become a mainstay of the county’s economy. While proponents say the developments bring much needed jobs to the region, many residents living in their shadows lament the pollution, traffic and neighborhood disruption.

    In Bloomington’s case, the project in question fractured the community. Some people who sold their homes to make way for the industrial park say they got a good price and were happy to move on, while many of the neighbors left behind see a future with 24-hour truck traffic and a hollowing out of the community’s rural culture.

    Alondra Mateo, a community organizer for another plaintiff in the suit, the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, said the many residents who have spoken out in public hearings, raising concerns about the environmental impacts of the Bloomington Business Park, were told that the county was adhering to the required environmental review process.

    “For the court to take a look at all the evidence and then agree with us,” Mateo said, “is such a big, powerful win to our community that has honestly been gaslit for so long.”

    Candice Youngblood, an attorney with the nonprofit environmental law group Earthjustice, which represented the plaintiffs, called the county’s environmental report “deficient.” She said the court’s findings are “a testament to the fact that this document reflects cutting corners at the expense of the community and in the interest of industry.”

    In a nearly 100-page ruling, Alvarez determined that the county had violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not analyzing renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project, and not adequately analyzing construction noise impacts.

    Alvarez found the county failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the project; and failed to sufficiently analyze how air emissions would impact public health. Despite finding the project would have unavoidable impacts on air quality, the county determined using zero-emission trucks would be an economically infeasible form of mitigation — a finding that Alvarez deemed “not supported by substantial evidence.”

    But he ruled against the plaintiffs on several issues, rejecting their arguments that the county failed to analyze the project’s traffic impacts; failed to adequately analyze environmental justice issues; improperly analyzed operational noise impacts; and abused its discretion by failing to translate key portions of the report into Spanish.

    Youngblood, with Earthjustice, said the ruling forces the county to restart the environmental review process, including providing community members with new opportunities to weigh in on the project’s impacts.

    Mike Tunney, Howard Industrial Partners’ vice president for development, said the company was “pleased” by the court’s ruling upholding portions of the environmental report. He said the ruling would result in “minor revisions” to the report, which the county would “quickly address.”

    “We are committed to making the necessary adjustments to address the issues identified by the Court,” Tunney said in a statement. “We will simultaneously pursue an appeal of portions of the Court’s ruling that threaten a $30 million major flood control project which is already under construction to prevent ongoing flooding that has negatively impacted the community for decades.”

    This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

    [ad_2]

    Rebecca Plevin

    Source link

  • Floyd Mayweather Jr. sued by man who alleges bodyguard assaulted him at L.A. Live Yard House

    Floyd Mayweather Jr. sued by man who alleges bodyguard assaulted him at L.A. Live Yard House

    [ad_1]

    Floyd Mayweather Jr. has been sued by a man who claims he was physically assaulted by a bodyguard for the boxing legend after trying to film Mayweather at a downtown Los Angeles restaurant nearly two years ago.

    In a complaint filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Eduardo Andres Torres Martinez alleges that he spotted Mayweather at the Yard House at L.A. Live on Feb. 10, 2022, and began recording video of the undefeated fighter with his cellphone.

    According to the lawsuit, Mayweather, 46, noticed Torres Martinez’s activity, and Mayweather and/or a member of his team “signaled” toward his bodyguards.

    “At the behest, request, command, demand and/or prompting of the Mayweather Money Team,” the complaint states, a bodyguard approached Torres Martinez and struck him, which knocked him to the ground.

    The bodyguard then began “wrestling with Plaintiff in an attempt to confiscate Plaintiff s cell phone, causing further injuries and damages to Plaintiff,” the filing states, adding “by reason of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiff was placed in great fear for his life, health and safety.”

    The lawsuit names Mayweather, the Money Team LLC and the Yard House as defendants, with causes of action that include assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, general negligence and negligent hiring training and supervision.

    Torres Martinez is seeking unspecified “general damages for past, present and future pain, distress, anguish and suffering, including physical and mental pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment of the quality of life,” as well as other damages, the lawsuit states.

    According to the Los Angeles Police Department, police responded to a radio call of a battery/assault on that date and at that location, but no report was taken.

    The Times was unable to reach Mayweather, who has denied that any such incident occurred. Torres Martinez’s attorney did not immediately respond to a message from The Times.

    [ad_2]

    Chuck Schilken

    Source link

  • YouTuber Logan Paul Slapped With Class-Action Lawsuit Over NFT ‘Game’

    YouTuber Logan Paul Slapped With Class-Action Lawsuit Over NFT ‘Game’

    [ad_1]

     

    An image of YouTuber Logan Paul with a Pokémon background.

    Logan Paul, the YouTuber and wrestler has been saddled with a class-action lawsuit over “fraudulent actions” regarding his NFT game, CryptoZoo.

    After a year of investigation, Stephen “Coffeezilla” Findeisen, a YouTuber who looks into fraudsters and fake gurus in the crypto space, discovered that Logan Paul’s CryptoZoo was something of a scam. CryptoZoo, a blockchain game that was supposed to function like passive income for Paul’s ardent fans and early investors, actually wound up being a rug pull for just about everyone involved because Paul’s team preemptively sold the in-game currency, zoo coins, before everyone else. Aside from some of the folks hired to work on CryptoZoo, who allegedly made thousands of dollars, others interested in the “game” lost hundreds if not thousands, according to Coffeezilla’s multi-part investigatory series.

    Read More: YouTuber: Logan Paul’s NFT ‘Game’ Is A Big Crypto Scam

    Initially, Paul was furious with Coffeezilla’s year-long investigation, calling him the “Keemstar of crypto in finance” and threatening to sue him in a since-deleted YouTube video. Paul has walked that statement back, apologizing to his fans and Coffeezilla while also putting forth a three-step plan to “finish and deliver” CryptoZoo, which has been basically broken since its August 2021 launch. Now, as Coffeezilla tweeted on February 3, Paul has been hit with a class-action lawsuit.

    G/O Media may get a commission

    It’s a camera. For your car.
    The Ring Car Cam’s dual-facing HD cameras capture activity in and around your car in HD detail.

    The plaintiff, a Texas police officer who poured about $3,000 of his own money into CryptoZoo in the hopes that it would yield big returns, filed the litigation in the city of Austin. According to the suit reviewed by Kotaku, the plaintiff is seeking damages north of $75,000 for “conspiracy to commit fraud,” “fraudulent misrepresentation,” “negligence,” “unjust enrichment,” and more. The plaintiff named everyone involved with the game’s creation, including Paul and former lead developer Eddie Ibanez. In the end, the plaintiff wants repayment for copious damages, from attorney’s fees and the costs of action to civil penalties and mental anguish.

    Read More: Logan Paul Says Some Of His NFT Game Devs Were ‘Con Men,’ But He Didn’t Scam

    Kotaku reached out to Paul for comment.

    Paul has not responded to the lawsuit at all since it was filed. However, he did make an appearance (and got injured) during WWE’s 2023 Royal Rumble event on January 28. His YouTube accounts, including his Impaulsive podcast, have been pretty quiet since February started. As all of this is going on, though, Paul’s likeness is slated to appear in developer Visual Concepts’ WWE 2K23 when it comes out on March 17.

     

    [ad_2]

    Levi Winslow

    Source link