Nicki Minaj says she isn’t personally on the hook in a lawsuit claiming she owes $275,000 to a concert production company, calling it “an ill-advised attempt to sue a famous deep-pocket.”
24/7 Productions sued the star and her company (Pink Friday Productions) earlier this year, claiming she had refused to reimburse money spent on her HeartRadio’s 2023 Jingle Ball concerts and later that year for her album Pink Friday 2.
But in her first response last week, attorneys for Minaj say she herself shouldn’t have been named in the “frivolous” lawsuit at all — and that 24/7 Productions just wanted to sue 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 write in the July 14 filing, obtained and first reported by Billboard. “Without rhyme or reason, [it] treats Pink Friday and Minaj as one and the same.”
Minaj was slapped with the case in March, with 24/7 Productions claiming it had made “many attempts” over two years to get the money but that the star’s team had “never given a reason” for failing to pay: “The only responses from defendants’ team [has been] the mantra-like ‘we’ll look into this.’”
But in the new response last week, Minaj’s legal team said the star herself was not legally involved with the production, as is often the case in such situations.
“At no time did plaintiff render any services or advance any expenses on behalf of Minaj, individually,” the filing says. “Minaj does not owe plaintiff any money … and dismissal as against Minaj is appropriate.”
The lawsuit also accused Nicki of “unjust enrichment,” a legal claim based on the allegation that she herself was the “sole economic beneficiary of Pink Friday.” But in their response, the star’s attorneys say that was just a litigation tactic aimed at adding her to the case.
“In an ill-advised attempt to sue a famous deep-pocket, plaintiff asserted a fanciful and baseless unjust enrichment claim,” her lawyers write. “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.”
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comments.
Minaj has faced several legal headaches over debts in recent months. In January, a judge threatened to order the sale of her Los Angeles area mansion before she finally paid a $500,000 judgment to a concert security guard allegedly assaulted by her husband. Then last week, she was sued by a law firm that says she owes $230,000 in unpaid legal bills stemming from a copyright lawsuit.
