Jay-Z
HOUSTON - The law firm representing Jay-Z in the highly-publicized legal battle between the rapper and attorney Tony Buzbee is seeking to dismiss a $25 million lawsuit Buzbee brought against the firm.
The Buzbee Law Firm filed suit against Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in Harris County last December, alleging Quinn Emanuel is harassing Buzbee and making baseless accusations for fraud.
Tony Buzbee
“This case arises out of outrageous litigation gamesmanship by… Quinn Emanuel that cannot be countenanced,” Buzbee’s suit states. “In a response to a simple demand letter seeking a mediation with Plaintiff’s client, Quinn Emanuel first filed a baseless complaint for ‘extortion’ against… Buzbee. But now Quinn Emanuel has gone too far… (and) must be stopped.”
On Monday, Quinn Emanuel filed a motion to dismiss Buzbee’s lawsuit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, asserting Buzbee’s suit, which includes “exaggerated allegations,” is nothing more than a “calculated attempt to stifle Quinn Emanuel’s constitutional rights.”
“Even if Buzbee could (and it can’t) meet its burden to prove each element of its ‘claims’ by clear and specific evidence, all of them would be barred by the attorney immunity doctrine,” the motion states. “Quinn Emanuel urges dismissal of all Buzbee’s claims.”
Quinn Emanuel argues Buzbee’s suit arises from his representation of more than 150 individuals claiming to have been assaulted by Sean Combs.
“But Buzbee’s campaign wasn’t limited to Combs,” the motion states. “With Combs behind bars — and with quick payment from his coffers likely in doubt — Buzbee improvised. Rather than simply sue Combs, Buzbee began threatening legal action against a number of high-profile individuals…”
When Buzbee targeted Jay-Z, the artist hired Quinn Emanuel and sued Buzbee’s firm for “its brazen extortion,” the motion states.
Quinn Emanuel contends Buzbee’s lawsuit is subject to dismissal under the TCPA because it “illegally targets” the firm’s constitutionally protected free-speech rights.
“Buzbee can’t overcome that presumption because it hasn’t adduced a shred of ‘clear and specific evidence’ that supports its claims,” the motion states. “And even if it had met that burden, Quinn Emanuel is protected by core defenses like attorney immunity.
“The court should dismiss Buzbee’s lawsuit.”
Case No. 2024-84902
