Court rejects Kesha’s appeal, Dr. Luke’s defamation suit moves forward

In a double legal blow for singer-songwriter Kesha, a New York court has rejected her bid to be released from her contractual obligations from her producer Dr. Luke – and his $50 million defamation suit against her now moves forward.

The New York Appeals Court has upheld the March 17 decision of the Supreme Court to reject her claims.

It called these “palpably insufficient and devoid of merit.”

It has also squashed further appeals.

The Court found that Kesha’s agreement with the producer and label owner could not have been as personally and professionally as restrictive as she claimed because she had continued to work under those conditions while waiting for the litigation process to start.

In other words, she could not have been that distressed.

The musician had previously stated in her countersuit: to get away from ties to Dr. Luke “You can get a divorce from an abusive spouse, you can dissolve a partnership if the relationship becomes irreconcilable.

“The same opportunity – to be liberated from the physical, emotional, and financial bondage of a destructive relationship – should be available to a recording artist.”

The Appeals Court also rejected her attempt to use California’s seven-year rule limiting personal service contracts as an additional way to dissolve the contract.

The court said that the California clause did not apply as the court case was filed in New York.

This rejection of Kesha’s appeal means that Dr. Luke’s $50 million defamation lawsuit against her can now move forward.

He will have to prove that she did defame him, and that her accusations of his mental and physical abuse were without merit.

But it means that Kesha will now have to release documents involving her PR firm and former lawyer.

According to the court, these do not cover legal strategy, and therefore not protected by lawyer-client privilege.

The legal saga between the two began in October 2014 when she claimed he had abused her and sexually assaulted her over their ten-year working relationship.

He counter-sued that he had been defamed and that she had made these claims only to get out of her contract.