Pitbull Beats Lindsay Lohan Lawsuit, Defends First Amendment
And for nearly two years, the most frivolous of suits has been the grievance filed against Miami's Pitbull for his use of "disparaging" and "defamatory" lyrics on "Give Me Everything."
But yesterday, according to TMZ, a New York judge sided with Armandito, ruling that it was totally OK for him to drop Lohan's name on the 2011 Billboard chart-topper because, well, the U.S. Constitution says so.
-Pitbull Sued by Lindsay Lohan for Disparaging Her Name on "Give Me Everything"
-Pitbull Responds to Lindsay Lohan's Lawsuit in PlanetPit.com Video
-Lindsay Lohan Ignores Pitbull's Invitation For "Give Me Everything" Duet
The legal battle began in 2011, when LiLo took offense to Mr. Worldwide's lyrical shout out: "Hustlers move aside so, I'm tiptoein' to keep flowin'/ I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan."
Lohan, "a professional actor of good repute and standing in the Screen Actors Guild," according to the suit, sued under a New York law that "protects people from having their name exploited for commercial purposes."
But compelling arguments from Pitbull's legal team regarding Lohan's curious court filing, plagiarized legal briefings by the actor's attorney, and the First Amendment to the Constitution proved too tough a defense for the plaintiff to penetrate.
"The fact that the Song was presumably created and distributed for the purpose of making a profit does not mean that plaintiff's name was used for 'advertising' or 'purposes of trade' within the meaning of the New York Civil Rights Law," U.S. District Judge Denis Hurley explains in his ruling, according to Billboard.
"The Supreme Court has made clear that "[m]usic, as a form of expression and communication, is protected under the First Amendment." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 790 (1989). Thus, because the Song is a protected work of art, the use of plaintiff's name therein does not violate the New York Civil Rights Law."
But that's only the tip of LiLo's legal iceberg.
Judge Hurley dismissed just about every claim the plaintiff made, including the one about "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" and "Unjust Enrichment Claim."
After all was said and done, the "defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint [was] granted, and their motion for sanctions [were] granted in part and denied in part."
Pilbull 1, Lohan 0. Daleee!.
Follow Crossfade on Facebook and Twitter @Crossfade_SFL.
Follow Victor Gonzalez on Twitter @Victor314.