Slipknot Lawsuit: Defendants Fire Back at Former Percussionist Chris Fehn
MetalSucks has obtained new legal documents from the ongoing court battle between Slipknot and former percussionist Chris Fehn.
Earlier this week, Fehn, through his legal representation, filed an amended complaint requesting a judge deny the motion to dismiss brought by Slipknot’s business manager Robert Shore. In the latest papers, filed in New York State Court on Wednesday, July 10th, Shore’s team has filed a motion rebutting Fehn’s amended complaint and insisting that the case against him should still be dismissed.
A legal expert speaking to MetalSucks has told us that current laws allow Fehn to submit just one amended complaint without explicit permission from a judge. In other words, this back and forth cannot go on forever, and this is it: the judge, Melissa Anne Crane, must now decide whether to dismiss the case or not based on the evidence already presented by both sides. If the motion to dismiss is denied, the case will proceed to court.
Shore’s latest motion presents the argument that Fehn’s amended complaint does not address the issues raised in Shore’s original motion to dismiss, and therefore that motion must proceed. Further, Shore alleges that Fehn missed a June 24th deadline to submit such an amendment, turning it in on July 1st instead.
It should be noted that the motion to dismiss has been filed only by Robert Shore and his company, Rob Shore & Associates, Inc. No such motion to dismiss has been filed by any business entities related to Slipknot, Corey Taylor or Michael Shawn Crahan (“Clown”), who are all also named in the suit. Those cases will proceed even if Shore’s motion to dismiss is granted.
What follows are excerpts from Shore’s latest motion:
“Contrary to plaintiff’s apparent belief that his repackaged, “amended” complaint cures the defects plaguing his initial complaint and moots Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss [it does neither], it suffers from the same incurable defects as its predecessor […]
“Having previously asserted a single cause of action against RSA and Shore seeking an accounting based on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty, Fehn now separates this claim into two causes of action [i.e., Counts “IV” and “V”], but repeats the fatal flaws of his original pleading. His “amended” claims must be dismissed because:
“(1). no cognizable cause of action is alleged against Shore;
(2). Fehn falls short of CPLR §3016’s pleading requirements;
(3). the relationship alleged in the complaint is a routine business relationship, and a cause of action for an accounting cannot lie; and
(4). Fehn neither alleges nor establishes the absence of a suitable legal remedy.
“Fehn is under the misimpression that filing a manufactured, “amended complaint” that simply repackages his initial complaint, moots Defendants’ pending dismissal motion. However, because that motion challenges the merits of Fehn’s claim, it is not mooted by an amended pleading […] Filing an essentially duplicative pleading neither cures the substantive defects in Fehn’s claims nor relieved him of his obligation to address Defendants’ initial motion.”
The 26-page document continues by breaking down Fehn’s arguments and refuting them directly in much greater detail. The next court date is scheduled for July 26th.
Selected screen shots from Shore’s latest motion are included below.