Nicki Minaj v. “Nosey Heaux” Libel Lawsuit

This motion is dropped at vindicate the fame of Plaintiff, a famous person artist who is named Nicki Minaj. The Defendants herein have outrageously defamed Plaintiff by posting a video on their Twitter web page wherein Defendant Marley Inexperienced (“Inexperienced”) who goes by the identify of “Nosey Heaux,” falsely and maliciously acknowledged that Plaintiff is a “cokehead” who’s “shoving all this cocaine up her nostril.” Additional, evidencing a elementary lack of decency, Inexperienced has additionally posted vile feedback about Plaintiff’s one year-old son. Whereas these feedback should not actionable, they nonetheless reveal why punitive damages ought to be awarded on this case.

In a distinct age, Inexperienced’s lie would have been meaningless as a result of she is the final word “no person”—on info and perception, an individual whose foremost accomplishments in life have been a string of felony costs, bail leaping, and unhealthy money owed. However that is the age of social media, one wherein a “no person” can discover an undeserved following by relentless self- promotion. Inexperienced is a type of “nobodies,” as she posts content material belonging to her wholly owned firm, Defendant Nosey Heaux Reside LLC (“NHLLLC”), on a number of social media platforms. A kind of platforms is the “Nosey Heaux Reside” Twitter web page, which, inexplicably, has roughly 3,300 followers. Inexperienced subsequently has the means to publish a lie realizing that it’s going to metastasize as it’s retweeted by her followers, after which additional retweeted by the followers of her followers, and so forth.

That’s what has occurred right here. In simply the day following Inexperienced’s September 12, 2022 publication of her lie that Plaintiff is a “cokehead” on her Twitter web page, nearly 2,000 folks had “preferred” it. Extra importantly, greater than 260 folks had retweeted it, which led to a firestorm of social media consideration which was undoubtedly attributable to a number of ranges of subsequent retweets. Whereas social media is a very efficient car for spreading lies, it doesn’t confer a license to take action.

On info and perception, and as discovery will probably reveal, Inexperienced has been performing as a proxy for an additional performer who, mistakenly believing that she and Plaintiff are stars of equal stature, has repeatedly used different social media intermediaries in a hopeless effort to advance her profession at Plaintiff’s expense. Nonetheless, the truth that Inexperienced was performing on the behest of one other doesn’t make her conduct much less egregious or excuse her from the implications of the damages she has brought on Plaintiff to endure….

For at the least the previous yr, Defendants have used the assorted Nosey Heaux Reside social media platforms in an effort to demean and insult Plaintiff—efforts which had been of no concern to Plaintiff.

Nonetheless, the scenario modified on September 12, 2022, when Defendants posted a video on the Nosey Heaux Twitter web page wherein Inexperienced acknowledged (“Inexperienced’s Video Assertion”) that Plaintiff is “shoving all this cocaine, shoving in all this cocaine up her nostril. Allegedly. Thanks. Allegedly. However everyone knows it is true. Fuck—hear, I can not even say allegedly with that ‘trigger I—we all know it is true. I am not saying allegedly on that. Nicki Minaj is a coke head.” (Emphasis provided).

Inexperienced’s Video Assertion was defamatory per se in that it (a) charged Plaintiff with a critical crime, and (b) tended to injure Plaintiff in her commerce, enterprise, or occupation.

Inexperienced’s Video Assertion was false as a result of Plaintiff has by no means used cocaine.

Inexperienced, on behalf of herself and NHLLLC, made the Inexperienced Video Assertion with precise malice in that they both knew that it was false or knew that there was a excessive likelihood that it was false.

The Inexperienced Video Assertion was not protected by any privilege.

The Inexperienced Video Assertion constituted slander per se.

By purpose thereof, Plaintiff has been broken in an quantity to be decided by the jury, however which is in no occasion lower than $75,000.

As well as, as a result of Defendants’ conduct was so wilful, wanton and malicious, Plaintiff is entitled to get better punitive damages in an quantity to be decided by the jury….

Compliments to plaintiff’s lawyer Judd Burstein, for conciseness and readability. (I in fact cannot communicate to the factual deserves of the case.)