|
 The complaint was filed in Manhattan federal court six days
after an unredacted version of West's own lawsuit in California
was made public.
West accused EMI of trying to bind him to a potential lifetime
of "servitude" under a lopsided contract that he said became
unenforceable on Oct. 1, 2010, and even forbade him from
deciding when to "retire as a songwriter."
EMI, however, accused West of a "flagrant attempt to forum shop"
to try to benefit from a California state law declaring personal
services contracts unenforceable after seven years.
The New York-based affiliate of Sony Corp said West's publishing
agreement is not such a contract, and required that any disputes
be resolved in New York, whose law "strictly prohibits such
gamesmanship."
EMI also said the agreement has been amended or extended seven
times, most recently in 2014, and generated tens of millions of
dollars of advance payments alone for West.
Lawyers for West did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.
EMI wants a judge to declare the 2003 agreement valid and stop
West from suing in California.
[to top of second column] |
West wants to assume EMI's ownership stake over songs he delivered
on or after Oct. 1, 2010, and recoup money that EMI made during the
last four years on those songs.
He had sued EMI on Jan. 25 in a California state court. The case
later moved to federal court.
The New York case is EMI April Music Inc et al v West et al, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-02127.
The California case is Please Gimme My Publishing Inc et al v EMI
April Music Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Central of California,
No. 19-01533.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Cynthia
Osterman)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
 |
