Nicki Minaj has filed a motion for dismissal against an independent jewelry company that’s sued her for $26,000, because, she says, she’s not responsible for the damaged jewelry.
Court documents obtained by Radar Online reveal that Minaj’s attorney — who filed on behalf of both the “Starships” rapper and her stylist, Brett Alan Nelson — flat-out refuted the claims filed by Roseark jewelry.
“Defendant denies, both generally and specifically, each and every allegation of the Complaint and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever,” the documents state.
What’s more, Minaj went on to claim that she returned the jewelry about 12 days after it was originally loaned out to her, so she couldn’t be responsible for any damages that may or may not have occurred to the jewelry as a result of her returning it.
“Plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by the primary negligence and/or acquiescence in the acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint by Plaintiff and/or its agents or others acting on Plaintiff’s behalf, including because Plaintiff now seeks to both keep the Jewelry and obtain money for the value of the Jewelry,” the documents continue.
Therefore, because there was no breach of contract, Nicki Minaj is requesting the courts to dismiss the case on its face.
Previously, it was revealed that photographs used in court show several items that Minaj obtained from the WeHo-based brand. Among them is a diamond ring with two pieces missing.
A contract that solidifies the agreement between Minaj and the store even has the signature of her stylist, Brett Alan Nelson. An invoice shows that the transaction was “final” with “no refunds or exchanges.”
Roseark has alleged that Minaj and her team didn’t return 66 items on time, and when they finally got around to it, the delivered jewelry was defective. The “Super Bass” rapper was then sent a bill for $26,239.50 plus interest, which she allegedly still hasn’t paid.
Regarding the ordeal, Minaj’s attorney, Jordan Siev, said, “We have not been presented with any evidence that any of the jewelry at issue was damaged by Nicki.”
He added: “This lawsuit appears to be nothing more than an ordinary insurance claim by the jeweler designed to generate publicity for itself and extract a payment to which it is not entitled. We will defend the lawsuit vigorously.”