A California judge suggested on Monday that A$AP Relli should think about dropping his defamation lawsuit against A$AP Rocky before a ruling that could potentially leave him responsible for paying Rocky’s significant legal fees.
“I would urge you to contact the other side and see if a deal can be made,” Los Angeles County Judge Randolph M. Hammock said during a morning hearing in downtown L.A. “Maybe in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit, they’ll drop their claim for fees. … Maybe it’s time to cut your losses.”
Hammock explained that if Rocky succeeds with his pending motion to dismiss the case on free speech grounds – something the judge indicated was likely – Relli could owe as much as $50,000 in legal fees to Rocky and his attorney, Joe Tacopina. “I’m not talking chump change here. It would be tens of thousands, easily,” the judge warned.
Relli, whose real name is Terell Ephron, joined the hearing by phone and represented himself. He told the court that his former legal team withdrew after a jury found Rocky not guilty of shooting him with a semiautomatic weapon during a 2021 dispute in Los Angeles. “I’ve already invested over $500,000. I paid [my prior law firm] Sheppard Mullin, and they left me at the last minute. So now, I’m stuck on my own. I’m just fighting for my rights here,” Ephron told Judge Hammock.
Speaking carefully, the judge attempted to break down the complexities of Rocky’s anti-SLAPP motion. He said the law is so “harsh” that Rocky and Tacopina could still pursue fees even if Ephron withdrew the case now. “Mr. Ephron, listen to me carefully, OK? This is a very highly technical motion. It has to do with the First Amendment,” Hammock said. “They have to [show] this is a matter of public interest. They probably will show that. I’m pretty sure they will. I think your case has gotten some press, okay? And I know that Mr. Mayers was recently acquitted. … Maybe you can reflect upon this case and what you want to do.” While the judge noted it was still possible he could rule in Ephron’s favor, he cautioned that Ephron was at a disadvantage and might be wasting more resources by continuing.
California’s anti-SLAPP statute was created to allow defendants to challenge lawsuits that attempt to silence free speech quickly. Under the law, defendants must first show that their statements involved issues of public interest. If they succeed, the plaintiff must then demonstrate with admissible evidence that defamation occurred, even before discovery begins. The judge called this a difficult hurdle to clear.
Ephron filed his defamation claim in 2023 against Mayers and Tacopina, alleging they wrongly portrayed him as a liar and extortionist seeking to profit from his shooting allegations. Mayers has always denied the accusations.
During the three-week criminal trial, a witness testified that Rocky only had a prop gun firing blanks during the altercation. Jurors also heard a recording in which Ephron told an associate he would be willing to disappear to an island and avoid prosecutors if Mayers paid him. Testimony also revealed that Ephron had demanded $30 million.
On Monday, Judge Hammock scheduled an October 23 hearing for Rocky’s anti-SLAPP motion in the defamation case. He said Ephron must file an opposition before that date, whether or not he secures new legal representation. Ephron is also suing Mayers for civil assault over the 2021 incident, with that trial expected to begin in January.
“Rocky has done nothing wrong, and we’re looking forward to a decision,” Mayers’ civil lawyer James Sargent told Rolling Stone after the hearing. He would not confirm whether Mayers might agree to waive legal fees if Ephron dismisses the case.
In a filing last month, Mayers’ attorneys argued that “there’s no question that the alleged statements made by [Tacopina] were done so in a public forum about an issue of public interest.” They emphasized that, as a world-famous artist in a relationship with Rihanna, Mayers’ case naturally drew media attention. “The general public was incredibly interested in the allegations against Mr. Mayers and his opinion regarding their validity, or lack thereof. The interviews and statements given by Mr. Tacopina on behalf of Mr. Mayers and himself absolutely fall under the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. As such, the defamation claims should be dismissed in their entirety.”
Mayers has always maintained his innocence. He did not take the stand during his trial, but two members of A$AP Mob testified that the prop gun came from the set of his “D.M.B.” music video with Rihanna and could only fire blanks.
When the jury acquitted him, Mayers leapt over a courtroom barrier to embrace Rihanna, who was seated in the front row. He also hugged Tacopina and addressed the jurors as they left the room. “Thank you all for saving my life. Thank you. Thank you for making the right decision,” he said.
Leave a comment