Lydia Harris Death Row lawsuit

Photo Credit: Wesley Tingey

Lydia Harris is attempting to revive her Death Row Records lawsuit against Snoop Dogg, Suge Knight, Universal Music head Lucian Grainge, and others. But as things stand, the presiding judge is refusing to reconsider the $107 million case’s dismissal.

We covered that dismissal earlier this week, shortly after Judge David Hittner tossed the action on procedural grounds. Specifically, Harris is said to have personally served the suit to some of the defendants – a big no-no in the legal world – and failed to serve others yet.

Following the setback, it was unclear whether the self-represented Harris would continue litigating. She didn’t respond to our request for comment, and the above-mentioned defendants certainly possess the resources needed to dig in for a protracted legal battle if necessary.

Now, we have an answer: Harris on Tuesday formally asked the judge to reconsider the dismissal and to accept a newly filed proposed amended complaint.

At the top level, Harris in the amended suit mainly reiterated existing arguments – including by emphasizing her 2005 default judgment against Suge Knight and alleging a related strategic concealment of Death Row assets to avoid paying her the $107 million in question.

But she took things a bit further with claims involving attorney Dermot Givens. According to the proposed amended action, Givens in November 2021 – “while simultaneously representing Defendant Marion ‘Suge’ Knight” – moved to reopen Harris’ “long-closed 1995 personal bankruptcy.”

The alleged “acts constitute bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud,” and more, per Harris, whose proposed amended suit tacked on new defendants including Warner Music Group and Alan Grunblatt. Despite the added allegations and parties, however, we might not see the case play out at all; Judge Hittner that same day denied Harris’ motion for reconsideration altogether.

Still not ready to call it quits, Harris today submitted a motion to alter or vacate the dismissal order. The latter “improperly forecloses” the plaintiff’s “right to cure procedural defects or amend pleadings and constitutes clear error,” according to the motion.

Also in the alter-or-vacate motion, Harris spelled out that she’d “cure procedural deficiencies” via the amended suit. Enter a separate “proof of service plan” filed by Harris today, outlining plans to properly serve each of the defendants.

At the time of this writing, an order addressing Harris’ newest filings wasn’t live in the docket, and the defendants hadn’t responded to the amended action push.