Judge reinstates jury's defamation verdict against blogger sued by Megan Thee Stallion
Also, closing arguments are Monday in a civil wrongful death trial in Los Angeles and a murder trial in South Carolina involving a gas station owner who shot and killed a teenager.
A federal judge on Friday reinstated a jury’s defamation liability verdict against an online commentator sued by rapper Megan Thee Stallion.
Milagro Cooper does not qualify as a media defendant under Florida law because she was “commissioned” by rapper Tory Lanez and his family to defame Megan, according to a 25-page order from U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga in the Southern District of Florida. Lanez is in prison in California for shooting Megan and injuring her feet in 2022
A federal jury in Miami on Dec. 1 determined Milagro is a media defendant, which entitled her to be notified before she was sued. Megan’s lawyers didn’t do that before they filed the lawsuit on Oct. 29, 2024, so Judge Altonaga tossed the defamation liability finding and the accompanying $16,000 in damages. That reduced damages to $59,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress and promotion of an altered sexual depiction.
Megan’s lawyers asked the judge to alter the judgment and reinstate the defamation verdict in a 20-page motion filed on Dec. 23. Milagro filed notice of her intent to appeal the judgment, but the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 30 said it wouldn’t schedule briefing until Judge Altonaga considered Megan’s motion to change the judgment.
The order issued Friday details how the jury came to decide if Milagro qualifies as media.
The judge ruled on Feb. 7, 2025, that Milagro is not media so the lawsuit could proceed despite the lack of pre-suit notice. Milagro’s lawyers, however, wanted the jury to decide the issue during trial, and Megan’s lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP said they were fine with that. Altonaga said near the end of trial that she believed the record was now “quite different” and the jury should decide, and Megan’s lawyers agreed.
“Plaintiff also took an active role in addressing a jury question regarding how to properly evaluate the media-defendant factors. Her counsel participated in drafting, revising, and approving the jury instructions and special interrogatories without making the objections Plaintiff now asserts in the Motion,” according to the order issued Friday. “On this record, Plaintiff invited any alleged error and thus may not challenge the interrogatories under Rule 60(b)(1).”
However, Judge Altonaga said “extraordinary circumstances” justify reinstating the defamation finding. The key issue, the judge said, “is whether Defendant was commissioned by the Petersons to publish or broadcast those three defamatory statements,” referring to Lanez’s legal name, Daystar Peterson, and his father, Sonstar Peterson.
The evidence shows Defendant was commissioned by the Peterson family to make the three defamatory statements. When first approached by Daystar Peterson on September 17, 2020, Defendant stated, “if you gave me . . . any exclusive it’d change my life” and afterward maintained a close relationship with the Petersons.
The first defamatory statement — Defendant’s December 21, 2022 post calling Plaintiff a non-credible witness — was made the same day Daystar texted Defendant, “It’s Tory[.] Hit me[.]”
By that date, Defendant had received payments from Sonstar, obtained information from the Peterson team before other media outlets, and sent materials to assist Daystar’s criminal defense.
The second defamatory statement — Defendant’s January 5, 2023 appearance on DJ Akademiks’s podcast — was also made the same day Sonstar texted Defendant, “Hi Mila, call me asap.”
The third defamatory statement — Defendant’s August 7, 2024 post asking whether Plaintiff was “caught trying to deceive the courts again” — followed the June 10, 2023 Zoom meeting where participants, including Defendant, discussed using a “third-party” strategy because statements damaging to Plaintiff needed to come from someone other than “Tory[,]” whose own statements “[could] be held against him[.]”
Defendant confirmed her understanding of that role, inquiring about the content the Petersons were “looking for[.]” And as late as February 2024, Sonstar continued to direct Defendant to speak on matters he could not address himself. The third statement was consistent with that ongoing arrangement.
In sum, because the trial record shows that Defendant was commissioned by the Petersons to publish or broadcast the three defamatory statements, the Court finds as a matter of law that Defendant was not entitled to pre-suit notice.
You can read the entire order here.
Megan said in a prepared statement that the ruling “is a reminder that the truth matters and ultimately prevails.”
“I’m truly grateful for the judge’s thoughtful and thorough consideration in reinstating the jury’s defamation verdict and holding the defendant fully accountable for all of her actions. I’m ready to finally close this chapter and I hope this sends a powerful message that spreading lies and defamatory statements has clear consequences,” Megan said.
Previous articles:
Ex-gas station owner on trial for murder for shooting teenager accused of shoplifting
Closing arguments are scheduled Monday in the trial of an ex-gas station owner in South Carolina who shot and killed a teenager he falsely accused of shoplifting.
Rick Chow, 61, is charged with murder for shooting Cyrus Carmack-Belton, 14, in his back after he ran from the Shell station and convenience store Chow owned in Columbia on May 28, 2023.
Chow’s 23-year-old son, Andy Chow, testified on Friday that he ran after Cyrus because he believed he stole bottled water and wanted to see which direct he fled. He said he didn’t intend to catch up with him, but the boy tripped and pointed a gun at him as he was trying to stand up.
“I see he trips and falls flat on the grass, and so I was running full speed, so I end up catching up to him, and when I catch up to him, I see something is in his hand,” Chow said.
“I’m not sure what it is yet, but as he starts to get up, I see that it’s a gun, and he starts — and he points it at me. So I immediately put my hands up,” Chow testified.
“I start to back away from him quickly, and then I yelled, ‘He has a gun,’ and then I turn to my dad, who’s coming up behind us, and I yell at him again, ‘He has a gun,’ and I’m still backing up, and I watch my dad, and I hear I watch him yell, ‘Drop it! Drop it!’” Chow continued. “And he yells ‘No.’”
He said his father “pulls his gun and fires one shot.”
“After the shot, I turn and I look at him, and I see he takes one or two steps, drops his gun in front of him, and then ducks to the ground and stays on the ground,” Chow said about his father.
Dale Scott, a senior assistant solicitor in South Carolina’s 5th Judicial Circuit, screamed at Chow louder than I’ve ever heard an attorney scream at a witness. It happened after he ended his cross-exam by confirming with Chow that the shooting wouldn’t have happened if he and his father had stayed in their store instead of running after Cyrus.
Defense attorney Shaun Kent followed up in re-direct by asking Chow, “It doesn’t happen if Cyrus doesn’t pull a gun on you either, correct?”
“Correct,” Chow answered.
In re-cross, Scott screamed, “You don’t even know there’s a gun if you stay in the gas station! Right?”
A defense attorney said “Your Honor,” but Judge Heath Taylor didn’t intervene.
“You don’t know he’s got a gun if you stay put in the Shell gas station, correct?” Scott asked.
“Yes, sir,” Chow answered.
“I’m correct?” Scott asked.
“Yes, sir,” Chow answered.
Jurors saw video from body-worn cameras of Chow talking to police at the scene of the shooting. Defense lawyers entered it as evidence in their case in chief.
In the video, Andy Chow tells an officer the boy tripped and he “was like running next to him, and then that’s when he had like pulled out the gun.”
Chow said his father yelled “like, drop it or something.”
“And that’s when my dad — he didn’t drop it, so my dad shot him,” Chow said.
Eyewitnesses testified Cyrus never displayed a gun and appeared frightened as he ran from the Chows.
Lori Ann Carson, who was at the Shell station with her daughter and grandchildren, said she saw the teen's shoe fly off and saw him fall to the ground.
Carson testified Cyrus “looked frightened, scared” and “like he needed help.”
“And how is that you can say he looked frightened and scared? How do you say that?” asked Assistant Solicitor Byron Gipson.
“The way his eyes were just like, like a young child just in trouble and just needed help. He just looked scared, in his eyes,” Carson answered.
“And is that what compelled you to do a little bit more?” Gipson asked.
“Yes,” Carson answered.
She said the boy was “like one of my grandkids, one of my kids.”
“I just had to help. I just couldn’t, I could not not do nothing. I could not do nothing,” Carson testified.
“The best thing I could do was just get my family out the way. I didn't mind if I got hurt, but I needed my family out the way, and I, I had to go down there and help him,” she continued, becoming emotional.
“And that’s what you did?” Gipson asked.
“And that’s what I did,” Carson answered.
Gipson later clarified with Carson that she didn’t see anything in Cyrus’ hands.
“I saw his backpack on his back, but I didn't see anything in his hands,” Carson testified.
“And as he ran down Spring Street, what was in his hands?” Gipson asked.
“I didn’t see anything in his hands,” Carson answered.
“And as he fell multiple times, what was in his hands?” Gipson asked.
“I didn’t see anything in his hands,” Carson answered.
“And from your vantage point, you feel certain you would have seen if something was in his hands?” Gipson asked.
“Yes,” Carson answered.
Carson’s daughter Kennedy Carson testified said she saw one of the men extend his arms as if pointing a gun after Cyrus fell.
Carson got into the well of the courtroom to demonstrate Chow’s stance.
“Turn me in the direction of where Cyrus would have been facing,” Gipson said.
“Maybe a little lower because he had tripped and he was coming back up,” Carson said.
“Like that?” Gipson said as he repositioned himself.
“Yes,” Carson said.
Judge Taylor overruled Chow’s lawyer Jack B. Swerling’s objection for leading.
“Did you see Cyrus Carmack-Belton turn around at any point?” Gipson asked.
“No,” Carson answered.
“Did you see him point anything at Rick Chow or Andy Chow at any point?” Gipson asked.
“No,” Carson answered.
Jasmine Broadwater testified was going to a restaurant with her aunt when she saw “a young man running” then “heard a pop sound.”
“We saw a young man go down to the ground, and we saw an older man have a gun in his hand pointed in a gun stand,” Broadwater said.
“You said you heard a pop. Did you recognize what that sound was?” asked Assistant Solicitor Weston Liefer.
“Not at first until I seen him hit the ground,” Broadwater answered.
“Okay. And when you saw Cyrus hit the ground, what did you see anybody else doing at that time?” Liefer asked.
“Me and my aunt, we were just staring. We saw the older guy had his gun pointed still, and I believe his son was running behind him. He had came to a stop as well,” Broadwater answered.
“After you realized that a shot had happened, what did you guys do?” Liefer asked.
“We stopped. My aunt said, ‘Jas, he just shot that boy. You need to call the police.’ We’re both about to call them. So we both puled out our cell phones,” Broadwater answered. They drove closer “and we still see Cyrus on the ground.”
“He looked like he was trying to push himself up, like how somebody’s doing push-ups, like he was shaking really bad, and he propped back down on the ground, started banging on the ground like in pain,” Broadwater testified.
She and her aunt were “moving real slow, because we wanted to make sure we saw everything.”
“And that’s when I got on the phone with 911 and explained to them, like, ‘Hey, we just saw the gas station owner shoot a young boy,’” Broadwater testified.
She said Andy Chow, who chased Cyrus, too, “was standing with his hands on his hips, like he was trying to catch his breath.”
“Whenever you were pulling out, who did you see holding a gun?” Liefer asked.
“Mr. Rick,” Broadwater answered.
“Did you see Cyrus holding anything?” Liefer asked.
“No,” Broadwater answered.
In cross-exam, Kent focused on what exactly Broadwater saw and her statement to a 911 operator.
“When you talked to the 911 operator, do you remember specifically telling them you did not actually see the shooting?” Kent asked.
“I stated in my 911 calls that I think I saw, and then I — my aunt was behind me, as you can hear in the 911 call, she said, ‘No, Jasmine, he did shoot that boy,’ and I said, ‘Yes, he did,’” Broadwater testified.
Kent told Broadwater, “I’m not trying to trick you, but I want to make sure I understand, and I think that is exactly what I heard on the 911 call, but when you were talking to the 911 operator, you initially said, ‘I didn’t see anything,’ correct?”
“No, I said, ‘I think I saw,’” Broadwater said.
“You think you saw. You were not positive when you talked to them, correct?” Kent asked.
“Because of my emotions,” Broadwater answered.
“Fresh to the incident as possible, close to possible, emotional situation?” Kent asked.
“Correct,” Broadwater answered.
“And then utter what you remember to the 911 operator, fair?” Kent asked.
Kent said the 911 operator asked Broadwater, “‘Did you see him shoot, shoot the boy, or did you just hear the gun go off?’ and your response was, ‘We just heard the gun go off, and then we happened to see the owner pointing the gun at the boy while he was on the ground.’ You remember that?”
“Correct,” Broadwater answered.
Kent said Broadwater gave two additional statements and “each statement after that first 911 call, would you agree, got a little more detailed?”
“Yes,” Broadwater answered.
“And this was after you had met with law enforcement the next day?” Kent asked.
“Yes, when I met with law enforcement,” Broadwater answered.
Jurors have seen several demonstrations in the well of the courtroom from attorneys and witnesses. I’ll have more in my article on the verdict, and you can watch short testimony clips on my social media pages that include news article captions.
My posts on TikTok and Instagram are getting huge attention, and I feel I have a responsibility to share as much informative testimony as I can.
Closing arguments are Monday morning, and I’ll stream on my YouTube channel.
Testimony ends in brothers’ wrongful death trial
Closing arguments also are Monday in a wrongful death lawsuit trial in California over two young brothers killed by a speeding and impaired driver.
Lawyers for Rebecca Grossman and Scott Erickson rested their case last Wednesday. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Huey Cotton instructed jurors on Friday and told them to return on Monday at 9 a.m. for closing arguments.
Attorney Brian Panish will argue for the plaintiffs, who are Nancy and Karim Iskander, whose sons Mark, 11, and Jacob, 8, died on Sept. 29, 2020, after Grossman struck them with her 2018 Mercedes-Benz AMG in a crosswalk in Westlake Village.
I’ll post video of the arguments on my YouTube channel and will try to live stream, too.
Thank you for supporting my independent legal affairs journalism. Your paid subscriptions make my work possible. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, please consider purchasing a subscription through Substack.