1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser

CATWALK JUSTICE: Lindsay Lohan Is In A Lawsuit (Again)

Catwalk Justice is our weekly column on fashion law, courtesy of Charles Colman of Charles Colman Law, PLLC and LAW OF FASHION.

Let me just say this upfront: I will not mention Steve Jobs’ resignation in this column.  After all, every other website in the world has covered the story — and besides, people, we’re dealing with more serious matters right now, like earthquakes, hurricanes, and song lyrics tarnishing Lindsay Lohan‘s good name.



[This post is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship among any individuals or entities. Any views expressed herein are those of the writer on the particular date of this post, and should not necessarily be attributed to his law firm or its clients.]



  • Vasallese

    Am i supposed to care about Lohan, the lawyer, or PitBull? Please tell me. I think that email went into my spam box.

  • The Author

    Dear Vasallese,

    You are an idiot.  All of the people written about are a means to an end — namely, discussing the law.  Further, roughly 25 other people and companies come up in the rest of the column.  Please do not read my column in the future.

    Cordially,
    The Author

  • Vasallese

    If you cannot handle any criticism, stop writing. Since I am the only one who responded, obviously not many other people care,either. Or they don’t want to read your columns.

  • The Author

    I can handle criticism that is on point.  Yours is not.  Goodbye.

  • The Author

    I can handle criticism that is on point.  Yours is not.  Goodbye.

  • Vasallese

    Oh no! I read another one of your columns! Call the police!

  • Vasallese

    Should have guess, you ae a lawyer. No sense of humor, no sense of humanity, no sense.

  • Robert Thony

    Any idea why Pitbull’s lawyer(s) asserted misinterpretation of his lyrics as a defense as opposed to truth?  It would seem as though at the very least, they could assert that defense in the alternative, i.e., “Even if a reasonable person would believe Pitbull’s lyrics are an unambiguous reference to Lindsay Lohan and her trouble with the law…”  (Or is an affirmative defense such as this even available to be asserted in the alternative?)

  • The Author

    Robert,

    Thanks for your question.  Pitbull made that statement to the media, probably to the chagrin of his lawyers.  Clients differ in the degree to which they’re willing to be “managed” by attorneys; some won’t agree to have all statements screened.

    Arguments in the alternative have their place, but they work best when they’re alternative *legal* arguments.  The meaning of the lyric in question is a factual assertion, so it’s probably best to just choose the most advantageous interpretation and stick with that.

    Best,
    The Author

  • Robert Thony

    Thanks for the analysis.  As you alluded to (as to which you alluded?), I’m not sure the defense will make much difference in the eyes of the judge, as the complaint seems rather weak.  How such a passing reference in a rap song could cause “irreparable damage” is beyond me, other than Lohan herself bringing more attention to it than it otherwise would have gotten. 

    However, that raises an interesting point: could Lohan’s own celebrity actually strengthen her claim that her reputation could be irreparably harmed by bringing attention to the defamatory language through litigation?  In other words, if, hypothetically, she had never gone to jail, and truth were not an available defense, could her assertion of her right to access the legal system increase the chances that Pitbull’s statement would actually cause her irreparable harm?

  • The Author

    That’s an interesting chicken-or-the-egg problem, but one that the court probably wouldn’t have to address in this case, since the song in question was widely distributed.  If, by contrast, someone sued for defamation over a YouTube video that only 2 people had seen until the lawsuit was filed, then you’re right: the lawsuit, and not the video, would have done far more “irreparable harm” to the plaintiff than the video that formed the subject matter of the lawsuit.  I’ve never seen a court speak to this issue, and it’s hard to imagine a judge holding a plaintiff’s legitimate use of the judicial system against her, but it would be fascinating to research whether courts have actually done this.  If only I had the time…

© 2013 Styleite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Jobs | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Terms of Service | Archives | Power Grid FAQ | Style Sheets FAQ | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Power Grid by Sound Strategies | Hosting by Datagram

X