This post was originally published on this site.
Drake‘s New Mexico fight has become a legal battleground as federal courts split over Stake cases and plaintiffs pursue his promotional records.
An August 13 joint report reviewed by AllHipHop shows both sides demanding opposite paths from Chief U.S. District Judge Kenneth Gonzales.
Plaintiffs Nathaniel Torres and Rory Michie want another 90-day pause or court-approved discovery into how Drake’s Stake campaign reached New Mexico residents.
“Without discovery, Plaintiff cannot ascertain the exact number of New Mexico residents that have subscribed to Drake’s Kick.com channel or that Drake has targeted with promotional content and convinced to gamble on Stake.us. But the Court can reasonably infer from Drake’s substantial follower count and widespread influence on young people nationwide, as well as from Plaintiff’s experience, that Drake has conducted at least a ‘single transaction’ within New Mexico,” their lawyers wrote.
They argue one in-state transaction could trigger New Mexico’s long-arm law and justify reviewing Drake’s partnership details and marketing strategy.
Drake’s earlier declaration says he never “directed, tailored, or targeted [his] Stake.us-related promotional content specifically to New Mexico residents or to the New Mexico market” and never “created Stake.us-related content with the intention or understanding that [his] content would be used to advertise Stake.us specifically in the state of New Mexico.”
The jurisdiction clash arrives after a Virginia judge ordered arbitration in a related Stake lawsuit on July 30.
The new filing says Stake also won arbitration in South Carolina, while a Minnesota judge refused and Stake appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
Those mixed outcomes place New Mexico at the center of a broader fight over whether these claims remain public or move behind closed doors.
AllHipHop previously detailed Drake’s attempt to force arbitration in the New Mexico case, which began with allegations involving Stake.us promotions and gambling losses.
“Maintaining a stay would substantially prejudice Defendants Graham and Ross because it may be months, if not longer, before the motion to compel arbitration in Urdan is fully and finally resolved,” defense lawyers wrote.
Drake and Ross want the stay partly lifted so they can refile dismissal motions while Stake’s arbitration request awaits the Illinois ruling.
Gonzales has not ruled, and plaintiffs proposed another status report by November 11 if he extends the stay for 90 days.
