Breaking: Federal Court Delivers A Blow to Promoter Who Attempted to Shut Down Faith Evans Bad Boy Reunion Performance in Atlanta

An Atlanta promoter decided to take singer Faith Evans and Live Nation to court for a temporary restraining order so she could not take part in the September 8th Bad Boy Reunion Concert that is scheduled to take place at Philips Arena. According to Jeremy Hill of Middle Georgia Entertainment Group, the singer contracted to perform at his event on September 10th at Wolf Creek Amphitheater in southwest Atlanta. Because of Evans participation in the Bad Boy concert, promoter Hill stated to the court in legal filings exclusively obtained by Hip Hop Enquirer that his event will be financially ruined and his reputation would be tarnished due to her breach of contract. However a federal judge weighed the merits of his case and reviewed witness testimony and ruled against the promoter.

It is standard practice that if an entertainer is being booked in a particular region that no other dates should be promoted that would compromise the success of a date that has already been secured..assuming the contract spelled out the terms beforehand. From reviewing the legal documents, it appears Hill’s own witness may have help move the scale favorable to Faith Evans when he testified that his experience as a promoter may not have had the same repercussions from Evans cancellation. In addition, promoter Hill had already replaced the singer with recording group Next so there was no way of really accessing the potential damage because of the change.

The ruling:

Plaintiffs’ own evidence shows is of interest to a fan-based following in Atlanta, who want to see Defendant Evans in concert. See Golden
Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City & Cty of S.F., 512 F.3d 1112, 1126 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[When]an injunction is asked which will adversely affect a public interest . . . the court may in the public interest withhold relief until a final determination of the rights of the parties, though the postponement may be burdensome to the plaintiff.”).

In summary, “[t]he issuance of a TRO is . . . improper in this case given that it is such an extraordinary and drastic remedy and that Plaintiffs have failed
to meet their burden of persuasion as to [at least one] of the four requisites.”Pronman v. Styles, No. 12-80674-CIV, 2014 WL 5325207, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014).