LOS ANGELES (LALATE EXCLUSIVE) – Kim Zolciak is disputing any involvement with Kandi Koated Entertainment, Kandi Burruss’ company, at issue in the song “Don’t Be Tardy for the Party”. Kim asserts that Phaedra Parks, Kandi’s co-counsel, has allegedly left unanswered for the court why Kandi Koated Entertainment, specifically, is suing Kim Zolciak. But is Kim right?
For months, RHOA fans have heard details of the dispute between Kandi and Kim over the Tardy for the Party song. But LALATE can exclusively reveal that Kim is asserting an alleged vacuum of explanation about one issue. Why is Kandi Koated Entertainment suing Kim Zolciak?
Kim is asking that claim(s) by Kandi Koated Entertainment against her be dismissed by the court. Kim asserts “Nowhere in Plaintiffs’ Complaint is it asserted that Kandi Koated Entertainment, Inc. is an owner or an assignee of any copyright interest in the Composition or the Sound Recording”. Kandi disputes the same, however.
Kim further asserts that she raised this issue in her first brief on her motion to dismiss and that Phaedra Parks did not respond to it her brief for Burruss. “This deficiency was noted in Defendant Zolciak-Biermann’s Brief in Support of Her Motion to Dismiss and it was not disputed in Plaintiffs’ Opposition Brief to the same.” But despite Kim’s assertions, the test is whether the issue is detailed in the complaint sufficiently, not in the briefs.
Kim hence asserts that Kandi Koated should be dismissed. “Further, Plaintiffs’ Opposition Brief states the copyright interest in the Sound Recording purportedly owned by Plaintiff Burruss and Plaintiff Richards has never been transferred,2 thus, Plaintiff Kandi Koated Entertainment, Inc. has no legal interest in the Sound Recording at issue and has no basis for stating claims against Defendant Zolciak-Biermann for alleged infringement of the same.”
She also claims “Therefore, even if the court elects not to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, all claims brought on behalf of Kandi Koated Entertainment, Inc. must be dismissed.” The court has yet to rule on the matter.