Rihanna and her father are not quietly settling the $75 million lawsuit that the mega-star filed early this year. According to the complaint that counsel for Rihanna filed in a California federal court in January, the multi-hyphenate Grammy winner (and budding beauty mogul)’s father Ronald Fenty and his business partner, Moses Joktan Perkins, are on the hook for “fraudulently misrepresent[ing] to third parties and the public that their company, Fenty Entertainment, LLC, is affiliated with Rihanna, and has the authority to act on her behalf.” and are “soliciting millions of dollars from unsuspecting third parties” as a result.
As of this week, counsel for Ronald Fenty and Moses Joktan Perkins formally responded to Rihanna’s headline-making lawsuit, denying the allegations, and asserting a handful of defenses in an attempt to escape legal liability. Primarily, Fenty and Perkins claim that Rihanna and her fellow plaintiffs – corporate entities Roraj Trade, LLC and Combermere Entertainment Properties, LLC – have “failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” and that they “do not have a case or controversy as required by federal law,”
More than that, the defendants argue in their answer that they “acted in good faith” in using Rihanna’s federally protected “Fenty” trademark in connection with their talent and production company, and that they did not engage in any acts that “would constitute a violation of any rights possessed by [Rihanna and co.].”
Still yet, even if Mr. Fenty and Mr. Perkins did run afoul of the law as a result of their Fenty Entertainment venture, they claim that Rihanna has “suffered no damages as a result of the acts complained of,” and that any damages that the singer and her respective entities suffered were “caused by the negligence of the plaintiffs and/or third parties other than the defendants.”
With this in mind, Fenty and Perkins have asked the court to toss out the case in its entirety once and for all, and are seeking damages of their own, namely, for Rihanna to foot the bill for any “attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements incurred in defending this matter.”
*The case is Fenty et al v. Fenty Entertainment, LLC et al, 2:19-cv-00307 (C.D.Cal).