Snoop Dogg purchased Death Row Records back in 2022, and his oversight of the company hasn't been without its speed bumps. The ex wife of investor Michael "Harry-O" Harris is now demanding that Snoop stop using the label's name and assets until the company settles a $107 million judgement she won against them 20 years ago.
As reported by AllHipHop, Lydia Harris took this matter to federal court and filed a motion demanding that the court must order Death Row Records LLC to cough up the outstanding award. A California state court handed that down in 2005 after finding that the company and its CEO Suge Knight allegedly engaged in fraudulent and malicious conduct. It included $60 million in punitive damages.
Furthermore, Snoop Dogg's Death Row purchase worsened this situation in Harris' eyes. She accused them of carrying this out without her knowledge or approval, thus infringing on her legal rights via alleged unjust enrichment. As such, Lydia Harris wants the court to create a constructive trust on the brand and use successor liability for the new owners.
Snoop Dogg Death Row
You may be wondering how Harry-O fits into all of this. He reportedly invested $1.5 million to help Death Row's launch in 1989 in exchange for a 50 percent stake in the company. Following some legal complications, financial debates, and massive successes, Lydia Harris filed suit on Michael's incarcerated behalf in 2002. After the 2005 judgement, the Harrises reportedly never received payment while ownership of Death Row changed several times before landing in Snoop Dogg's hands.
Now, Lydia Harris alleges that the company evaded the court-ordered judgement via bankruptcy and corporate maneuvering. In addition, the motion includes civil RICO allegations claiming wire and bankruptcy fraud for the purposes of avoiding payment. Harris seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to block the use of Death Row's name and assets until the judgement comes through.
Not only that, but Harry-O is now Death Row's COO under Snoop Dogg. Tha Doggfather's legal team called Lydia Harris' move an example of "bad faith litigation and harassment" and a poor revival of an old case. We will see how a federal court rules on this matter.
