Kesha Appeals Judge's Denial of Dr. Luke Injunction

The pop star's attorney writes in a court brief that the decision last month is akin to perpetuating "slavery."
 Roy Rochlin/Getty Images

Kesha Rose Sebert filed paperwork on Monday that's intended to have a New York appellate court weigh in on her dispute with producer Dr. Luke (Lukasz Gottwald).

Last month, in the midst of a legal battle where Sebert alleges being the victim of sexual abuse, New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich denied a preliminary injunction that would have allowed Sebert to record outside of Dr. Luke's purview. "You're asking the court to decimate a contract that was heavily negotiated and typical for the industry," said the judge at the court hearing.

Mark Geragos, Sebert's attorney, wants another opinion.

"Plaintiff seeks reversal of the Order on the following grounds," state her latest court papers. "First, the Court erred in basing its decision on its finding that Kesha could record without interference from Gottwald. Although it recognized that 'slavery was done away with a long time ago' and that '[y]ou can't force someone to work … in a situation in which they don't want to work,' the Court's ruling requiring Kesha to work for Gottwald's companies, purportedly without his involvement, does just that."

Sebert's side also believes that Kornreich made short thrift of the declarations from industry veterans attesting to the harm that the pop star would endure without the issuing of an injunction.

Dr. Luke's legal team has presented Sebert's claims as financially motivated and has been pursuing its own claims against her for breach of contract. When Sebert first pushed for an injunction, a Dr. Luke spokesperson responded, "If Kesha now regrets her career being mired in legal proceedings, it’s entirely of her making."

At the hearing last month, the judge seemed impressed by an offer made by Sony Music to allow Sebert to record without Dr. Luke's involvement. Geragos considered this to be an "illusory promise." He doesn't understand why the balance of equities favors the other side.

"The Court did not explain, nor could it, why any potential harm to SME could not adequately be compensated by money damages if it were to prevail in the litigation," he writes in his pre-argument statement. "Indeed, SME, Gottwald, and all the related entities are each free to make music (and money) with other young talent. In the event they prevail in the litigation, they can recover money damages from Kesha for her breach of contract."

comments powered by Disqus