Riri🫶🏽

🚨 PSA: Be careful with these court transcript screenshots circulating. The claim that Megan ran to her room because of the Bigfoot situation is being presented using separate portions of the transcript from two different topics, stitched together to create a misleading impression. Yes, there were contradictions in the testimony. But don’t confuse that with what these screenshots are trying to make you believe. I have the full transcript and the actual pages. Even if I don’t like somebody, I’m not going to misrepresent the record. The truth is interesting enough. Protect yourselves before you run with a manipulated narrative. I see the play a mile away.

🚨 Milagro Cooper has filed her reply brief in her second Eleventh Circuit appeal, asking the court to reverse the denial of her Rule 60(b)(6) motion, vacate the judgments and reassign the case to a different judge. Her two appeals have been consolidated for disposition purposes only. They remain separate appeals but will be considered together. The court may decide the appeals on the written submissions or schedule oral argument. Stay tuned for updates. Full breakdown in the video 👇🏾 📄 Read the full filing: drive.google.com/file/d/1i81… 
Milagro’s reply brief written details in the replies 👇🏾

🚨👀👀 While reading the latest SEC filing from Block, Inc. to get more context on the proposed settlement in the derivative lawsuit, I came across something very interesting about TIDAL. The company says TIDAL subjects them to risks and uncertainties related to the music industry. TIDAL’s business depends on various rights holders, and Block cannot assure that it or TIDAL will be able to maintain or expand arrangements with partners and other third parties on acceptable terms. They must pay all required royalties to record labels, music publishers, and other copyright owners, and the amount and timing of those payments is complex. Failure to accurately pay royalties may damage their business relationships, their reputation, and adversely affect the business, results of operations, and financial condition.

🚨 Update on the Block Inc Shareholders consolidated cases. A SETTLEMENT has been reached! Shareholders sued Block and its directors and officers, including Jack Dorsey, Shawn ‘Jay Z’ Carter, and others, claiming they failed to properly oversee Cash App compliance and breached their duties to the company. The primary claims focus on Cash App compliance failures. Shareholders allege that Block’s leadership prioritized rapid growth over proper oversight of customer due diligence and know-your-customer (KYC) controls. They claim this left Cash App vulnerable to fraud, money laundering, and other illicit activity, exposed the company to regulatory scrutiny and fines, and that the board and officers made false or misleading statements about the strength of compliance while the problems existed. There are also related claims involving securities laws and alleged insider trading / stock sales. These claims survived a motion to dismiss, so the court found them sufficiently pleaded to proceed. On October 26 the parties filed two things. First they agreed to combine the related lawsuits into the main case number 5:25-cv-01262, which would make the previously scheduled November 18 hearing on that issue unnecessary or moot. Same day they told the court they reached a settlement in principle on all the claims and asked for a stay of upcoming deadlines while they finalize the paperwork. The court granted the stay. The parties later agreed to file the formal settlement by November 9. The court is still keeping a case management conference on November 18 so it can check on progress. The settlement is not final until the court approves it. They are expected to formally file by November 9, 2026. ***Three of the screenshots below are from previously filed court documents.

🚨 Hadley v. Perez: the judge has set a hearing on the summary judgment motions. • Date: Monday, Nov 23, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. 
• Place: Courtroom 10-2, Miami, before Judge Beth Bloom 
• Time set aside: one hour 
• Motions on the table: Perez's motion for summary judgment (ECF 561), Hadley's motion for partial summary judgment against Perez (ECF 562), and Javon Hadley's motion for summary judgment (ECF 573) 
• Trial is still scheduled to start Dec 14, 2026 What is summary judgment? It's a request asking the judge to decide some or all of the claims on the filings alone, without a jury, because the party says the key facts aren't truly in dispute and the law is on their side. After the Nov 23 hearing, the judge will decide. A ruling could come before trial starts, but there's no deadline for it yet. Nothing is decided until the court rules.

🚨Buzbee defendants asked judge Ho for a 60 day extension of discovery On November 3, the Buzbee Defendants filed a letter asking Judge Dale Ho to extend the deadlines in the current case management schedule by approximately 60 days. The Curis Defendants have joined the request. This is the Defendants’ first request for an extension. However, the parties are not in agreement on how much additional time is needed. According to the letter, Jay Z’s side is willing to accept a 30 day extension with conditions, but opposes the Defendants’ request for 60 days. The Defendants argue that additional time is necessary to complete discovery in an orderly manner. They point to several issues: 1. More than 15 depositions have been noticed, but none have been definitively scheduled. The Defendants say coordinating the schedules of the parties and numerous nonparty witnesses has been difficult, particularly with the remaining discovery period overlapping with the holiday season. They also say that Jay Z has not provided dates for his own deposition, despite multiple requests, and that the Buzbee parties have faced difficulty coordinating depositions of the Defendants. 2. Disputes over the Jay Z’s discovery responses remain unresolved. The Buzbee Defendants say they raised deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s responses to their document requests on October 1. Two areas of dispute are particularly important to them: documents concerning the retention of investigators who interviewed Jane Doe at her home on February 21, 2025, and documents supporting the Plaintiff’s claimed damages. According to the letter, the parties met and conferred on October 13, but the Plaintiff did not provide a substantive response until November 2. The Defendants argue that further discussions, and potentially court intervention, will be necessary before they can obtain the discovery they are seeking. 3. The current schedule could require discovery to close before the case is even fully at issue. Judge Ho has scheduled oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss and strike the Third Amended Complaint for December 11. The Defendants argue that if any part of those motions is denied, they may have 14 days to answer and assert counterclaims. That could leave the parties with little or no time to conduct discovery related to those pleadings before the existing discovery deadline. The letter also provides a breakdown of document productions. Jay Z made several productions, including 3,185 documents on October 28 and another 1,653 documents on October 29. The Buzbee Defendants report producing 184 documents on October 9 and 46 documents, along with a privilege log, on October 22. No depositions have taken place. WHAT ARE THE DEFENDANTS ASKING FOR? They propose moving the fact discovery deadline from December 31, 2026, to February 26, 2027. They also want the expert disclosure and expert discovery deadlines moved, with expert discovery concluding April 30, 2027. The proposed schedule would move the joint status letter to May 7, 2027, with the next case management conference to be set by the Court. The Buzbee Defendants also cite lead counsel’s maternity leave as one of the logistical challenges affecting deposition scheduling. Counsel states that she gave birth four months ago and is technically still on leave. The letter concludes by arguing that a 60 day extension would give all parties sufficient time to complete discovery and reduce the likelihood of having to request another extension. It also accuses Jay Z’s side of seeking to run out the clock on discovery into his damages allegations. Important: This is a request, not an order. Judge Ho has not yet granted or denied the requested extension. The current deadlines remain in place unless and until the Court changes them.

Tupac pressed Jay Z at a Vegas hotel? Hmmm…