Key Takeaways
- Jay-Z has asked a bankruptcy court to preserve the $119,000 in attorney fees he was awarded after a paternity-related lawsuit from Lillie Coley was dismissed.
- His lawyers argue Coley, the godmother and legal guardian of Rymir Satterthwaite, is using bankruptcy to dodge a debt imposed because of what the court deemed years of fraudulent, harassing litigation.
- The six-figure judgment stems from California’s anti-SLAPP statute, after a judge dismissed Coley's case with prejudice and ruled she would "take nothing" from Jay-Z.
Jay-Z has filed a motion to have a $119,000 settlement he's entitled to in connection with a previously dismissed paternity case preserved after the defendant in the case filed for bankruptcy.
In legal documents filed by Hov's legal team, as reviewed by Complex, the rapper accused Lillie Coley, the godmother and legal guardian of Rymir Satterthwaite, of asking the court to "help her evade the court-ordered consequences of her actions."
Coley alleged that Jay-Z (real name Shawn Carter) is the father of Satterthwaite, whose mother is the late Wanda Satterthwaite. Jay denied the allegations, and his motion to have the lawsuit dismissed was later approved.
Coley filed for bankruptcy last year, which could result in her debts being erased. However, Jay-Z argues that the bankruptcy filing is an attempt to not pay the money she owes him after the lawsuit’s dismissal. His legal team argued that she's "harassed" him for over 10 years with "numerous unfounded court filings, online harassment campaigns and public statements." The latest motion also argues that Coley has a "history of vexatious litigation and attempts to avoid paying the debt" to Jay-Z.
Earlier this year, it was reported that Hov was "entitled to recover" $119,000 in attorneys' fees and related costs from the lawsuit.
In a previous statement regarding a separate legal matter related to the claims, Jay-Z's attorneys said the lawsuits were part of a "decades-long harassment" campaign. California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which rules that "a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs," was key to the decision.
