Kid Cudi asked a federal judge in Los Angeles to dismiss the $2.8 million lawsuit M.I.A. filed after he removed her from his Rebel Ragers Tour. His lawyers argue that the First Amendment protects his right to decide who performs on his shows. The motion is an anti-SLAPP filing, according to Krisavalon, which dated it Sept. 8. LawCommentary described it as filed on a Tuesday, which was Sept. 8, though its text gives Sept.10, the date Hoodline published its account. U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett has the case in the Central District of California. Digital Music News listed the case number as 2:26-cv05768. No hearing date has been reported.
What M.I.A. Is Suing Over
M.I.A., whose legal name is Mathangi “Maya” Arulpragasam, sued after a show in Dallas. Accounts of the date differ: the Daily Beast and LawCommentary put the show on May 2, while Consequence put it on May 3. Fox News said the venue was Dos Equis Pavilion and that remarks about immigrants and visas drew boos from the crowd. Cudi, whose legal name is Scott Mescudi, removed her from the tour afterward.
He said he would not have someone on the tour making offensive remarks that upset his fans, according to Fox News. M.I.A. said she had been canceled for many things but never expected to be canceled for being a Republican voter, the Daily Beast reported. Hoodline said M.I.A. filed the complaint May 29. The Daily Beast said June 1. The complaint accuses Cudi of inducing a breach of contract and interfering with her business, Digital Music News reported.
The complaint says Live Nation agreed to pay her more than $2.8 million “regardless of what she said on stage,” Fox News reported. M.I.A. seeks $2,805,000 in guaranteed fees plus about $290,000 in a lost private-party offer, according to Hoodline and Digital Music News. She also alleges lost merchandise, VIP and licensing deals. Live Nation is not a defendant. The complaint alleges she was removed to generate publicity for a tour that “struggled with
ticket sales,” Fox News reported. The Rebel Ragers Tour began April 28 in Phoenix, according to Digital Music News, with Big Boi, A-Trak and other acts on the bill.
The Size of the Claim
That Grape Juice reported that the fee claim covers 33 shows, while Fox News described the tour as having 30 stops. On the 33-show count, the guaranteed fees work out to about $85,000 a show. With the $290,000 added, the claim is $3.095 million, or about $93,800 a show. The Dallas show came about four weeks before the complaint. The motion to dismiss came 102 days after the complaint, counting from May 29.
Kid Cudi’s First Amendment argument
Cudi’s attorney, Mathew Rosengart, argues that the suit asks the court to hold his client liable “for exercising his First Amendment free-speech rights concerning artistic expression,” LawCommentary reported. The motion says the suit “fails on its face,” Krisavalon reported, and it argues that the removal concerns the casting and content of a live musical performance.
The motion relies on a 2019 California Court of Appeal decision, Symmonds v. Mahoney, posted by Justia. Glenn Symmonds, a drummer, sued the singer Eddie Money, whose legal name was Edward Mahoney, after Money fired him following about 41 years. Symmonds alleged age and
disability discrimination.
The appeals court reversed a lower court’s denial of Money’s antiSLAPP motion. The court held that a singer’s choice of the musicians who play with him is “an act in furtherance of his exercise of the right of free speech.” It sent the case back to the trial
court to decide whether Symmonds could show he was likely to win.
How An Anti-SLAPP Motion Works
California’s anti-SLAPP law, Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, lets a defendant ask a court
to strike a claim early when the claim arises from protected speech. The defendant goes first and must show that the claim targets protected speech. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show she is likely to win. A defendant who wins can recover attorney’s fees, Hoodline reported.
M.I.A.’s Side
M.I.A.’s attorney, Howard King, has not returned a request for comment on the motion, Hoodline reported. He has said that M.I.A. was “contractually allowed to say whatever she wanted on stage,” according to Krisavalon. The complaint’s account is that the contract guaranteed her pay whatever she said and that the removal served the tour’s need for publicity. If Garnett grants the motion, the claims could be struck at this stage. If she denies it, the case moves into discovery, where each side could demand contracts, communications and other records.
