Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Lawyers: Rapper not responsible for deadly crowd surge

HOUSTON — Attorneys for rap star Travis Scott argued in court Monday that he should be dismissed from hundreds of lawsuits filed over the deadly 2021 Astroworld festival, saying he was not responsible for safety planning and watching for possible dangers at the Houston event. But attorneys for relatives of one of the 10 people killed during a massive crowd surge at the festival said Scott ignored safety concerns and threatened to release online the personal information of anyone who would cancel the event over safety concerns. Stephen Brody, an attorney for Scott, said the rap star remains "devastated" and "heartbroken" by the tragic events of Nov. 5, 2021, when authorities and festival organizers tried to shut down the show and stop the surge. The families of the 10 people who died, as well as hundreds who were injured, sued Scott and Live Nation — the festival's promoter — as well as dozens of other individuals and entities. During a court hearing before state District Judge Kristen Hawkins, Brody argued that Scott and his touring and production company, XX Global, should be dismissed from the case. They said his duties and responsibilities related to the festival were outlined as performing, marketing, curating talent for the event, providing for his own personal security and approving all creative matters involving the festival. "And that's it," Brody said. During the concert, Scott, whose real name is Jacques Bermon Webster II, did stop his performance four times to check on issues he saw in the crowd, including some people who appeared to be in distress, according to Brody. "Did he have show pause authority?" Hawkins asked Brody. He could stop performing and wait to see if an issue of concern had been resolved, Brody said. But Brody added the festival's organizers as well as Houston police also had the ability to turn on the lights or cut off the sound if they thought something was wrong. Noah Wexler, an attorney for the family of Madison Dubiski, 23, said Scott's contract defined him as a co-promoter of the festival with Live Nation and as a promoter, he was responsible for the event's safety under Texas rules. Wexler alleged that Scott in a May 5, 2021, tweet that was sent after tickets for Astroworld had sold out instigated his fans to on the day of the show break into the festival grounds, writing, "we still sneaking the wild ones in." Wexler said this created dangerous conditions for a festival that was "massively oversold" and was part of a "conscious disregard for safety." Wexler alleged that Scott and his manager, David Stromberg, created dangerous safety conditions by insisting that Scott be the only musical act to use the main stage on the festival's first day, a situation that could create crowd flow problems. Scott and Stromberg were also accused of threatening to dox any festival organizers who would cancel the show over safety concerns. In a deposition, Stromberg said his doxxing comments were a joke made in "poor taste." Brody said safety concerns raised over Scott being the only person to use the main stage were fixed. Wexler also accused Scott and his team backstage of ignoring orders from festival organizers to stop the concert at 10 p.m. In a deposition, Scott said he was never told as he was onstage that there were people in the crowd who were dead and he needed to stop the show at 10 p.m. Scott said he was told to end the show after hip-hop guest artist Drake performed. The concert didn't end until 10:12 p.m. "It's one of the worst days for not just me but for a lot of people, families, the city. It was just -- it was just a bad day overall," Scott said in a deposition in September. Attorneys for other individuals and companies tied to the festival also asked Hawkins on Monday to be dismissed from the case. Hawkins was expected to issue a ruling on Scott's motion and the others at a later date. Last week, Hawkins dismissed lawsuits against Drake and several other individuals and companies involved in the show. After an investigation by Houston police, no charges were filed against Scott and a grand jury declined to indict him and five other people on any criminal counts related to the deadly concert. Those killed, who ranged in age from 9 to 27, died from compression asphyxia, which an expert likened to being crushed by a car. The lawsuit filed by Dubiski's family is set to be the first one to go to trial on May 6. Some of the lawsuits filed by the families of the dead and the hundreds who were injured have been settled, including those filed by the families of four of the dead.

$34.6 million verdict: Patent infringement case protects, rewards SC company

Action: Infringement Injuries alleged: Patent infringement with trade dress allegations Case name: GeigTech East Bay LLC v. Lutron Electronics Inc. Court/case no.: U.S. Southern District of New York / 18 civ 5290 Judge: Colleen McMahon Amount: $34.6 million Date: March 15, 2024 Most helpful expert: Douglas Kim, patent attorney, of Kim, Lahey & Killough, Greenville Attorneys: Gary Sorden of Cole Schotz, Dallas (for the plaintiff); Scott W. Breedlove of Carter Arnett, Dallas (for the defendant) GeigTech East Bay, a South Carolina company that makes modern window shades, obtained U.S. Patent No. 10,294,717, for a "shade bracket with concealed wiring" on May 21, 2019. The patent was originally filed by Richard J. McKenna of Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, and obtained by Douglas Kim, a registered patent attorney, of Kim, Lahey & Killough, Greenville. GeigTech filed a federal patent infringement complaint with trade dress allegations against Lutron Electronics Co. Inc. One of the tactics Lutron used to try to invalidate the patent. However, the patent written by Kim withstood two challenges in the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board and a jury trial. On March 12, the jury returned a verdict stating that Lutron had infringed on GeigTech’s patent and awarded $34.6 in damages. According to the jury verdict form, “Lutron opted to poach (GeigTech’s) patented designs and intellectual property to try and remain competitive in a segment of the market that (GeigTech) cornered.” As the finding of infringement was willful, GeigTech can ask the judge to triple the damages.

Defense verdict: Jury turns back lawsuit from pandemic-inspired claim

Action: Breach of contract and violation of South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act Injuries alleged: Breach of contract, unfair trade practice act, breach of warranty Case name: HHBC Inc. v. Jamis Bicycles Court/case no.: Beaufort County Common Pleas / 2021-CP-07-00143 Judge: Bobby Bonds Injuries alleged: $1.03 million (subject to tripling and addition of attorney’s fees to an estimated $4.5 million) Date: March 19, 2024 Most helpful expert: George Durant, CPA, Columbia Attorneys: Ashley Twombley and Thomas Iandoli of Twenge + Twombley, Beaufort (for the defendant); John Bowen of Laughlin & Bowen, Hilton Head (for the plaintiff) In 2021, plaintiff Hilton Head Bicycle Co. sued Jamis Bicycle Corp., alleging defendant breached a bicycle supply contract and caused plaintiff more than $1 million in damages. Plaintiff further alleged that the manner in which defendant breached the contract violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, allowing plaintiff to seek treble damages and attorney’s fees. The total exposure was estimated to be $4.5 million. A central issue at trial involved the unforeseen effects of COVID-19 pandemic on the supply chain, and whether these effects excused defendant from the alleged breach. This is one of the few known jury verdicts dealing with the unforeseen effects of COVID-19 and the South Carolina Uniform Commercial Code’s “commercial impracticably” provisions. Another central issue involved plaintiff's alleged damages, which were ultimately limited by the trial court judge before being presented to the jury. When plaintiff’s damages were presented to the jury, defendant alleged plaintiff’s damages claims were not supported by sufficient documentation (a calculation methodology, receipts, invoices, etc.) and amounted to little more than a homemade list of numbers set forth on a single sheet of paper. In closing arguments, plaintiff’s counsel Ashley Twombley argued, “My children have prepared Christmas list with more detail than this wish list prepared by .” After a six-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of defendant, concluding it did not breach the contract, and that plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.