Judge Orders Nelly’s Legal Bills Repaid After Case Deemed ‘Groundless’

US rapper Nelly attends the Baby2Baby gala at Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood, California, November 9, 2024.
US rapper Nelly attends the Baby2Baby gala at Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood, California, November 9, 2024. (Photo by Michael Tran / AFP) (Photo by MICHAEL TRAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Nelly won a major legal victory in a lawsuit that was recently dismissed.

According to Complex, U.S. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ruled that the lawyers behind the case filed by Ali K. Jones, a former member of Nelly’s  St. Lunatics, “should be sanctioned for pursuing claims that were clearly without legal merit.

Nelly was accused of taking royalties and credits away from the St. Lunatics from his 2000 album, Country Grammar.

“It should have been patently obvious to Jones’s attorneys that his copyright ownership claim was time-barred,” Lehrburger wrote. “After being placed on notice that the ownership claim stood no chance of success. Jones did not withdraw his complaint. Instead, his attorneys doubled down and proceeded.”

“Jones’s copyright ownership claim was groundless on its face from the time it was first asserted,” the ruling continued.

In 2024, Jones alleged that Nelly “manipulated” the St. Lunatics into thinking they would be compensated. But Murphy Lee, Kyjuan, and City Spud, three distanced themselves from the case. They claimed “they never authorized the lawsuit.” All went on with the suit but eventually dropped the case in April.

Although the case was thrown out, Nelly’s is seeking penalties, describing the case as “vexatious” and “ridiculous.”

“Plaintiff’s counsel succeeded in its frivolous campaign aimed at forcing [Nelly] to spend money defending Plaintiff’s ridiculous time-barred claim,” wrote Nelly’s lawyer, Ken Freundlich, at the time. “The Court is respectfully requested to retain jurisdiction and set a briefing and hearing schedule for [potential sanctions].”

Lehrburger ordered that Gates cover the legal fees Nelly “incurred after the revised complaint was filed.”

“This case sends a message to lawyers that there will be consequences for dragging a Defendant into an action that is frivolous on its face and refusing to withdraw it,” said Freundlich in a statement to Billboard. “There is a lane of course for zealous advocacy, but when the case is time-barred according to a plaintiff’s own pleading, it has no place in the system.”