Jay-Z is underneath renewed authorized strain as Lillie Coley seeks to reopen a dismissed lawsuit tied to a paternity declare involving Rymir Satterthwaite.

Jay-Z is as soon as once more entangled in a authorized battle as Lillie Coley, often known as the self-proclaimed “godmother” of Rymir Satterthwaite, filed a movement to revive her dismissed lawsuit in California federal court docket, claiming the rapper dodged accountability in a long-running paternity dispute.

Coley submitted the brand new request on November 14, aiming to overturn a choose’s earlier ruling that shut her case down with prejudice—usually a closing resolution that bars any future filings on the matter.

The dispute stems from Coley’s decade-long effort to assist Satterthwaite’s declare that Jay-Z is his organic father. Coley alleges the Hip-Hop mogul refused to take a DNA take a look at and manipulated the legal system in New Jersey to block the case from moving forward.

The newest authorized twist facilities on California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, a regulation designed to forestall lawsuits that intimidate folks from exercising free speech or taking part in authorized proceedings. Coley argues her case was wrongly dismissed underneath this regulation, stating it was misapplied primarily based on filings from a New Jersey case she believes was by no means legitimate within the first place.

According to court docket paperwork, Coley insists the New Jersey courts repeatedly acknowledged they lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, which means they’d no authorized authority to rule on the paternity concern. “A court without jurisdiction cannot issue valid orders,” she argues in her movement, claiming all the New Jersey course of was legally meaningless.

Coley initially sued in California, accusing Jay-Z of submitting false paperwork that broken her and silenced her potential to talk publicly in regards to the case. Jay-Z’s authorized workforce responded by invoking the Anti-SLAPP statute and requested the court docket to strike her criticism.

The choose agreed partly, ruling that any filings tied to the New Jersey case had been protected underneath the Anti-SLAPP regulation and that Coley’s revised criticism failed to handle the unique authorized flaws. That led to the dismissal with prejudice earlier this month.

Now, Coley is pushing to reopen the case, arguing the choose relied on court docket data from a jurisdiction that by no means had the ability to determine the matter within the first place. She desires the court docket to reinstate her amended criticism and let the case proceed.

Related