Mary J. Blige asked a New York judge to move Misa Hylton’s $5 million lawsuit to a specialized business court.
Mary J. Blige and her company, Beautiful Life Productions, are seeking to have a $5 million lawsuit filed by Misa Hylton and Vado transferred to the New York Supreme Court’s Commercial Division, arguing that the case is rooted in business disputes and requires specialized handling.
The legal battle stems from claims that Blige’s company interfered with a recording agreement involving Harlem rapper Vado, who was signed to Hylton’s M.I.S.A. Management.
The plaintiffs accuse Blige and her label of breaching the contract, disrupting other business relationships and intentionally stalling Vado’s career to pressure him into leaving Hylton’s management.
The lawsuit, filed in April, alleges Blige withheld Vado’s completed album and blocked his ability to tour, leaving him in “economic servitude.”
Hylton also claims Blige’s head of security, reportedly her boyfriend, tried to get Vado to sign documents without legal counsel.
Blige has denied all allegations and called the lawsuit “patently frivolous,” arguing it was filed “to harass and damage her personally and professionally.”
Her legal team is asking the court to dismiss the case and impose sanctions on Hylton and her attorney for what they describe as “meritless” litigation.
In a formal request to Judge Suzanne J. Adams, Blige’s attorneys requested that the case be reassigned to the Commercial Division, which handles complex business disputes.
They say the lawsuit meets the $500,000 threshold and centers on contract issues, including questions about whether New York or California’s law applies.
They also question whether M.I.S.A. Management is a valid legal entity and argues that Blige never signed the disputed contract in her personal capacity.
The court clerk initially categorized the case as “Commercial – Contract” but did not assign it to the Commercial Division, saying it didn’t meet the formal criteria.
Blige’s team disagrees and insists the case belongs in the Commercial Division due to its financial scope and legal complexity.
They also argue that the claim for emotional distress is not central to the case and doesn’t disqualify it from being transferred.
Judge Adams has not yet ruled on the transfer request.
Related