Nicki Minaj states that she is not personally liable in a lawsuit alleging she owes $275,000 to a concert production company, describing it as “an ill-advised attempt to sue a famous deep-pocket.”
24/7 Productions filed a lawsuit against the artist and her company (Pink Friday Productions) earlier this year, claiming she refused to reimburse expenses incurred for her HeartRadio’s 2023 Jingle Ball concerts and later for her album Pink Friday 2.
Related
In her initial response last week, Minaj’s attorneys argued that she should not have been included in the “frivolous” lawsuit at all — asserting that 24/7 Productions aimed to target a celebrity.
“The entirety of plaintiff’s lawsuit is based on a contract allegedly entered into between plaintiff and [Pink Friday],” the star’s lawyers stated in the July 14 filing, which was obtained and first reported by Billboard. “Without rhyme or reason, [it] treats Pink Friday and Minaj as one and the same.”
Minaj was served with the case in March, with 24/7 Productions claiming it had made “many attempts” over two years to collect the funds but that her team had “never provided a reason” for non-payment: “The only responses from defendants’ team [has been] were the mantra-like ‘we’ll look into this.’”
In their recent response, Minaj’s legal team asserted that she was not legally involved with the production, which is common in such cases.
“At no time did plaintiff render any services or advance any expenses on behalf of Minaj, individually,” the filing asserts. “Minaj does not owe plaintiff any money … and dismissal against Minaj is appropriate.”
The lawsuit also accused Nicki of “unjust enrichment,” claiming she was the “sole economic beneficiary of Pink Friday.” However, her attorneys argue that this was merely a tactic to include her in the case.
“In an ill-advised attempt to sue a famous deep-pocket, plaintiff asserted a fanciful and baseless unjust enrichment claim,” her lawyers contend. “It is a core principle of law that a plaintiff cannot hold a corporate officer personally liable for unjust enrichment when the services performed by the plaintiff were done pursuant to a relationship with the corporate entity. That is precisely what plaintiff seeks to do here.”
Both parties’ attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comments.
In recent months, Minaj has encountered several legal challenges regarding debts. In January, a judge threatened to order the sale of her Los Angeles area mansion before she ultimately paid a $500,000 judgment to a concert security guard allegedly assaulted by her husband. Then last week, she faced another lawsuit from a law firm claiming she owes $230,000 in unpaid legal fees related to a copyright lawsuit.
