L.A. Reid Fails To Toss Out Sexual Assault Lawsuit From 2023

Source: Shahar Azran / Getty

L.A. Reid‘s attempt to have his sexual assault lawsuit thrown out of court has been unsuccessful.

Judge Valerie Caproni in New York City made the ruling earlier this week after Reid’s lawyer initially tried to dismiss the claim, citing 10 sections of New York’s Penal Law Article 130 that shouldn’t have been included.

However, his alleged victim from the early 2000s says the move was wholly inappropriate and an outright waste of time, and the judge felt the same way.

“It is difficult to understand any prejudice caused by additional citations to other portions of Article 130,” Caproni said. “Because Defendant has not met his burden, his Motion to Strike is denied.”

The lawsuit stems from Drew Dixon, a former A&R at Arista Records which Reid was CEO of, saying that he sexually assaulted her on two occasions. The suit was filed back in November of 2023, with Dixon’s statement, which read, “sexually harassed [her] and refused to allow her to succeed unless she acquiesced to his demand to be alone and in close proximity to her, where he would create the opportunity to sexually assault her on two separate occasions.”

It also revealed that Reid used his powerful status as CEO and Chairman of the music label to prevent her from having any success in the music entertainment business.

“This litigation is not only about the horrific physical assaults that Ms. Dixon had to endure. But it is also about the irreparable damage done to the rare and blossoming career of an extraordinary talent,” the suit reads.

Drew continues that in addition to being harassed, she was forced to deal with all of the hard work she put in at her career to rise in the ranks, was thrown to the waist side, and called Reid a “known predator.”

This isn’t Reid’s first sexual misconduct claim, as the first came in 2017 when one of his female assistants filed a claim that led to him leaving his post as Sony’s Epic Records CEO.

“Plaintiff is using those laws to springboard claims of career frustration and disappointment,” they wrote. “For which there are no timely or cognisable causes of action.”