This post was originally published on this site.
Megan Thee Stallion‘s lawyers are firing back hard at Milagro Gramz’s newest legal argument. They filed papers this week calling Gramz’s judge bias claim a theory she found on social media.
Gramz wants the court to wipe out the $75,000 judgment she owes Megan after last year’s verdict. She first raised the claim earlier this month, arguing Judge Cecilia Altonaga’s husband works at a law firm tied to Roc Nation. Other lawyers at that firm, Holland & Knight, represent Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez in a completely separate lawsuit before a different judge.
Megan’s lawyers say none of that touches this case at all. They point out Mencio has never appeared in the lawsuit and Holland & Knight doesn’t represent Megan here. Perez isn’t a party either, and her separate case is being handled by an entirely different judge.
Megan’s team also says Gramz sat on this argument for months before raising it. They claim the whole theory came from a social media post published back in September 2025, seven weeks before the trial even started. Gramz litigated through the verdict, the judgment, and a failed bid to delay payment without ever mentioning it.
Megan’s team says none of this counts as the extraordinary circumstances the law requires to undo a final judgment. They argue Gramz is just recycling the same broke defense a judge already rejected last month.
Gramz leans on a 1988 Supreme Court case called Liljeberg to support her theory. Megan’s lawyers say that case actually helps their side, since the judge in it personally had a direct financial stake in the outcome. Nothing like that exists here, they argue, since neither the judge nor her husband gains anything from this case.
Megan has been outspoken about the case since the reinstated verdict in May. She said she felt grateful the truth won out after the judge restored the jury’s full verdict.
Gramz’s appeal is already pending before the Eleventh Circuit, which normally limits what the lower court can do. Megan’s team says the judge can deny the bias claim outright under a rule covering pending appeals, without waiting on the appeals court.
Gramz’s own filing never asks the judge to step aside from anything going forward, only to erase the judgments she already lost.
