List of Axl Rose lawsuits from L.A. Superior Court

[grigori]

Here's a list of lawsuits associated with Axl Rose from the L. A. Superior Court Database, that's 29 in all. This is more a curio than anything but if anyone was interested, here it is:

Name Case Type Filing Date

AXL ROSE PI Other (Unlimited) 09/04/90

ROSE AXL W. Commrcial Compl-Not tort or Complx (Unlimited) 08/27/93

ROSE AXL Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (Unlimited) 03/25/10

ROSE AXL Intentional PI/PD/WD (eg. assault) (Unlimited) 08/29/07

ROSE AXL Civil 11/19/90

ROSE W AXL Civil Harassment (Unlimited) 05/17/00

ROSE W AXL Civil 05/24/90

ROSE W AXL Civil 02/27/89

ROSE W AXL Civil 11/15/90

ROSE W AXL Civil 10/24/90

ROSE W AXL Civil 04/29/94

ROSE W. AXL AKA BAILEY WILLIAM Declaratory Relief Only (Unlimited) 07/19/91

ROSE W. AXL Civil Petition - Other (Unlimited) 02/06/96

ROSE W. AXL Fraud (no contract) (Unlimited) 11/23/10

ROSE W. AXL PI Other (Unlimited) 03/07/94

ROSE W. AXL Civil Harassment (Unlimited) 05/12/95

ROSE W. AXL Other Compl-not tort or Complex (Unlimited) 01/23/91

ROSE W. AXL Other Compl-not Tort or Complex (Unlimited) 08/27/93

ROSE W. AXL Contractural Fraud (Unlimited) 09/11/06

ROSE W. AXL Intentional PI/PD/WD (eg. assault) (Unlimited) 08/29/07

ROSE W. AXL Civil Harassment (Unlimited) 06/24/96

ROSE W. AXL Contractual Fraud (Unlimited) 04/28/03

ROSE W. AXL Contractual Fraud (Unlimited) 01/12/06

ROSE W. AXL Civil Petition - Other (Unlimited) 05/13/94

ROSE W. AXL Contract - Tortious Interference (Unlimited) 04/29/04

ROSE W. AXL Other Contract (Unlimited) 10/14/10

W. AXL ROSE Other Contract (Unlimited) 02/02/09

W.AXL ROSE OR AXL ROSE Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (Unlimited) 12/17/10

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

Here's a lawsuit from Doug Goldstein's Big F D Entertainment Inc., against Michael "Duff"McKagan and Slash from back in 1999 I never knew much about. Filed two weeks before the millennium.

Case Summary

Case Number: SC059763

BIG F D ENTERTAINMENT, INC VS. MICHAEL MCKAGAN ET AL

Filing Date: 12/14/1999

Case Type: Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (General Jurisdiction)

Status: Dismissed - Other 08/23/2000

Future Hearings

None

Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

Parties

BIG F D ENT. INC - Plaintiff

GOLDTSTEIN DOUG - Cross-Defendant

HUDSON SAUL - Defendant

JOHNSON & MISKEL - Attorney for Defendant

KATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS & ROSENMAN - Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

MCCAMBRIDGE DEIXLER & MARMARO LLP - Former Attorney for Plaintiff

MCKAGAN MICHAEL "DUFF" - Defendant

ROSE PROSKAUER - Attorney for Plaintiff

SLASH - Defendant and Cross-Complainant

Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

09/18/2000 Notice (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL. )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/08/2000 Partial Dismissal (with Prejudice) (DISMISSAL FILED W/PREJUDICE AS TO THE CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY MICHAEL MCKAGAN ON 1-27-2000. )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

08/29/2000 Notice-Case Reassignment and Order

Filed by Clerk

08/23/2000 Request for Entry of Dismissal (DISMISSAL FILED W/PREJUDICE AS TO THE CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED BY SAUL HUDSON ON 1-24-2000 AND THE ENTIRE ACTION. )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

08/11/2000 Notice (NTC OF STATUS CONFERENCE 9-27-2000 10:00 AM DEPT WE A )

Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

08/09/2000 Notice (NTC OF SETTLEMENT )

Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

04/20/2000 Substitution of Attorney

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

04/20/2000 Substitution of Attorney

Filed by Attorney for Cross-Defendant

03/03/2000 Answer to Cross-Complaint (ANSWER TO X-COMPLNT OF MICHAEL MCKAGAN )

Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

03/03/2000 Answer to Cross-Complaint (ANSWER TO X-COMPLNT OF SAUL HUDSON )

Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

02/09/2000 Summons Filed

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

01/27/2000 Answer to Unverified Complaint (FEE PAID BY JOHNSON & MISKEL ATTY FOR DEFT )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

01/24/2000 Answer to Unverified Complaint (FEE PAID BY KATTEN, MUCHIN & ZAVIS ATTY FOR DEFT & X-COMPLNT )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

01/24/2000 Cross-complaint filed (FEE PAID BY KATTEN, MUCHIN & ZAVIS ATTY FOR DEFT & X-COMPLNT )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

12/20/1999 Summons Filed

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

12/14/1999 Complaint Filed

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

******************************************************************************

Here's more on that 2005 Lawsuit from Slash & Duff on behalf of the Guns N' Roses partnership against Axl Rose if anyone is curious to read:

Case Number: SC081543

SAUL HUDSON ET. AL. VS. W. AXL ROSE

Filing Date: 04/29/2004

Case Type: Contract - Tortious Interference (General Jurisdiction)

Status: Dismissed - Other 05/22/2006

Future Hearings

None

Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

Parties

BRAVADO INTERNATIONAL GROUP - Defendant

DUFF - Pltf's AKA

GREENBURG GLUSKER - Former Attorney for Defendant

HUDSON SAUL - Plaintiff

JOHNSON & MISKEL - Attorney for Plaintiff

KATTEN MUCHIN & ROSENMAN - Former Attorney for Plaintiff

MCKAGAN MICHAEL - Plaintiff

MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP - Attorney for Plaintiff

ROSE PROSKAUER - Former Attorney for Defendant

ROSE W. AXL - Defendant

SLASH - Pltf's AKA

WEITZMAN HOWARD - Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information

Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:

07/12/2005

06/25/2007 Miscellaneous-Other (NTC TO BKKPR ISSUED ON 6/25/07 TO TRANSFER $150.00 JURY FEES DEPOSIT ED ON 4/21/06 REC#SM474108015 TO JURY SRVC. )

Filed by Clerk

05/22/2006 Order of Dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO THE ENTIRE ACTION (SEE MINUTES DATED: 5/22/06) NOTICE IS WAIVED.)

Filed by Court

05/10/2006 Substitution of Attorney

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/01/2006 Miscellaneous-Other (VERIFICATION RE: PLAINTIFF HUDSON'S FIRST SET OF FORM INTERROGATORIES )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/01/2006 Miscellaneous-Other (VERIFICATION RE: FIRST SET OF REQ FOR ADMISSIONS )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/10/2006 Notice of Ruling (RE: UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPL. FOR A 120 DAY CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE & PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/10/2006 Proof of Service

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/09/2006 Ex-Parte Application (unopposed ex parte application for a 120-day continuance of trial date and pre-trial deadlines, memo of points & authorities & declaration of Marc E. Mayer in support)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/09/2006 Order (granting ex parte application *signed by Judge Collins)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

01/09/2006 Substitution of Attorney (former legal rep: Zia F. Modabber new rep: Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, attorney: Lucia Coyoca for Plaintiff Saul Hudson pka SLASH )

Filed by Former Attorney for Plaintiff

12/21/2005 Amended Proof of Service

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

12/20/2005 Notice (OF ENTRY OF ORDER SHORTENING NTC PERIOD FOR MSJ )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

12/19/2005 Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

12/19/2005 Declaration (IN SUPPORT OF ATTY'S MTN FOR RELIEF AS COUNSEL )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

12/14/2005 Stipulation and Order (SHORTENING NOTICE PERIOD FOR MSJ )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

10/20/2005 Declaration (OF PATRICIA A. MILLETT IN OPPOSITION TO OSC RE: FAILURE TO APPEAR )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

10/18/2005 Reply To Motion (consolidated reply;Mot. to Compel Verified Further Responses to 1st inspection Demand; Mot. to Compel further responses to 2nd Inspection Demand; Mot. to Compel Bravado International comply .....)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

10/18/2005 Response (responses to evidentiary object- ions to the declaration of Joel R. Weiner in support of plff Saul Hudson P/K/A SLASH'S Motion to provide verified further responses & suppl. Decl.of Weiner)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

10/12/2005 Declaration (OF PATRICIA A. MILLETT IN SUPPORT THEREOF (EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS) FILED CONCURRERENTLY HEREWITH )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

10/12/2005 Objection Document Filed (EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECL. OF JOEL R. WEINER IN SUPPORT OF PLFF S.H. P/K/A SLASH'S NTC MOT. TO COMPEL;DECLARATION OF JOEL R. WEINER IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MOT. TO COMPEL ETC...................)

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/28/2005 Stipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/20/2005 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

09/20/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (CIVIL DEPOSIT )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/20/2005 Stipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE T/D AND RELATED DATES )

Filed by Stipulated by all Parties

09/20/2005 Ex-Parte Application (TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/15/2005 Stipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

09/07/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (PLFF SAUL HUDSON P/K/A SLASH'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MTN TO COMPEL DEFT. W. AXL ROSE TO: PROVIDE FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES TO FIRST INSPECTION DEMAND NOS. 14, 31, 48.)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

09/07/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (SUPPLEMENTAL DECL. OF JOEL R. WEINER IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MTN TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 1ST INSPECTION DEMAND )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

09/07/2005 Motion to Compel (DEFT W. AXL ROSE TO PROVIDE VERIFIED FURTHER RESPONSES TO 1ST INSPECTION DEMAND NOS. 14,31, 48 & 49, W/OUT OJECTIONS; PRODUCE DOCUMENTS; & PROVIDE A PRIVILEGE LOG; MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

09/07/2005 Substitution of Attorney

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

08/30/2005 Motion to Compel (DEFT W. AXL ROSE TO: PROVIDE VERIFIED FURTHER RESPONSES TO 2ND INSPECTION DEMAND, WITHOUT OBJECTIONS; PROVIDE DOCUMENTS & PROVIDE A PRIVILEGE LOG; DECL. OF JOEL R. WEINER)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

08/30/2005 Motion to Compel (BRAVO INTL' GROUP TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENT ETC... MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF JOEL R. WEINER )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

08/30/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (PLFF SAUL HUDSON P/K/A SLASH'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL DEFT. AXL ROSE TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO 2ND INSPECTION DEMAND ETC........ )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

08/30/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (PLFF SAUL HUDSON P/K/A SLASH'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL BRAVADO TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENT DEMAND )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

07/18/2005 Stipulation and Order (RE: CONTINUING HEARING DATE ON MOTION TO COMPEL )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

07/14/2005 Notice (OF OSC RE: SANCTIONS )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:

TOP 07/12/2005

07/12/2005 Reply To Motion (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH COURT DISCOVERY ORDER AND FOR RELATED RELIEF; DECL. OF JOEL R. WEINER )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

07/05/2005 Opposition (to hudson's motion to compel; declaration of hayes f. michel )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

06/24/2005 Motion to Compel (COMPLIANCE W/COURT DISCOVERY ORDER REMOVING REDACTION & ATTY'S EYES ONLY RESTRICTIONS; & IMPOSING MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFT. W. AXL ROSE; MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES;DECL.OF JOEL E. WEINER)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

05/06/2005 Ntc of Change of Firm Name & Addr

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

04/01/2005 Notice of Ruling

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/29/2005 Reply To Motion (SLASH'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MTNS TO COMPEL DOCUMENT PROD. & FURTHER RESPONSES TO INSPECTION DEMANDS & INTERROGATORIES )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/28/2005 Proof of Service

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/28/2005 Opposition (TO MTN COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO INTERROGS., 96,97, & 98; )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/28/2005 Opposition (TO SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED IN SUPPORT OF MTN COMPEL FURHTER RESPONSE TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGS., NOS. 96 97, & 98 )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

03/28/2005 Opposition (TO MTN COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO 1ST INSPECTION DEMAND NOS. 13,14,31, 48 & 49; DECL. OF HAYES F. MICHEL )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/28/2005 Opposition (TO SEPARATE STATEMENT FILED IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO COMPEL FURHTER RESPONSE TO 1ST INSPECTION DEMAND NOS. 13,14,31,48 & 49 )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

03/24/2005 Ex-Parte Application (TO APPROVE STIPULATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY IN LIGHT OF UPCOMING MEDIATION )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/24/2005 Order (SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY IN LIGHT OF UPCOMING MEDIATION IS SIGNED AND FILED )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/24/2005 Notice (OF ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON PLFF'S MTN TO COMPEL DISCOVERY )

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

03/23/2005 Proof of Service (DEPOSITION SUBPOENA )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Statement - General ((separate) in support of mtn to compel furhter responses to first set of specially prepared interrogatories #'s 96, 97 & 98 )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Statement - General ((separate) in support of mtn compel deft W. Axl Rose to provide further responses to 1st inspection )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Motion to Compel (deft W. Axl Rose to provide further responses to 1st set of specially prepared interrogs; req. for monetary sanctions amount $2,700 against deft;memo of points & authorities;decl. of J. R.weiner)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Motion to Compel (deft W. Axl Rose to provied further responses; req. for monetary sanctions of $2,700 against deft; memo of points and authorities; decl. of Joel R. Weiner)

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

03/23/2005 Proof of Service (DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

02/23/2005 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (OF TRIAL )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

02/18/2005 Stipulation and Order (TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES )

Filed by Stipulated by all Parties

02/18/2005 Miscellaneous-Other (CIVIL DEPOSIT )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

02/18/2005 Ex-Parte Application (TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; DECL. OF ZIA F. MODABBER AND HAYES F. MICHEL )

Filed by Stipulated by all Parties

11/15/2004 Order-Case Management (AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE )

Filed by Court

09/27/2004 Statement-Case Management

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

08/16/2004 Declaration (OF HAYES F. MICHEL RE OSC )

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

08/12/2004 Notice (OF CMC AND OSC RE: SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE )

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

06/28/2004 Notice (ORIGINAL NOTICE & ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF SUMMONS & COMPLAINT )

Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

06/28/2004 Ntc and Acknowledgement of Receipt

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

06/25/2004 Answer to Cross-Complaint

Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

06/25/2004 Answer to Cross-Complaint

Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

05/26/2004 Cross-complaint filed

Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

05/26/2004 Answer to Complaint Filed

Filed by Attorney for Defendant

04/29/2004 Complaint Filed

Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:

TOP 07/12/2005

Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed

Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

05/22/2006 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Order to Show Cause (*regarding: dismissal) - OSC held & case dismissed

05/16/2006 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Final Status Conference (and Jury Trial (5-7 days)) - Trial Date Vacated

05/04/2006 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Final Status Conference (and OSC re: defendant's failure toappear at the hearing date of7/12/05*Jury Trial: 5/16/06) - Continued

01/09/2006 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion Granted

10/25/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Motion to Compel (CSR: K. CALL, #5714) - Submitted

10/25/2005 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ruling on Submitted Issues (NO CSR) - Motion Granted in Part

09/29/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Non-Appearance (Case Review) (NO CSR) - Completed

09/20/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application (NO CSR) - Motion Granted

09/15/2005 in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Non-Appearance (Case Review) (NO CSR) - Completed

07/21/2005 at 08:35 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Motion to Compel (Compliance with Court DiscoveryOrder; Request for SanctionsNO CSR) - Off-Calendar-Request-Moving Party

07/19/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Motion to Compel (Compliance with Court DiscoveryOrder; Request for SanctionsNO CSR) - Continued by Stipulation

07/12/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Conference-Post Mediation Status (TRIAL DATE: November 8, 2005 andFINAL STATUS CONFERENCE DATE ISOCTOBER 26, 2005CSR: K. CALL, #5714) - Status Conference Held

03/30/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Motion to Compel (CSR: K. CALL, #5714) - Motion Denied

03/24/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application - Motion Granted

02/18/2005 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Ex-Parte Application (NO CSR) - Motion Granted

11/15/2004 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Conference-Case Management - STC held, Med ordered, trial set

10/04/2004 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Order to Show Cause (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCECSR: K. CALL, #5714) - OSC Discharged

08/11/2004 at 08:30 am in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding

Initial Status Conference ( and OSC for failure to file proof of service) - Status Conference Held

Edited May 27, 2012 by grigori

[classicrawker]

Yeah but none of them were his fault..........

[grigori]

This was just found searching for suits associated with the name Axl Rose. There might be more with Guns N' Roses, Black Frog, Bill Bailey, Velvet Revolver, etc.

[Vincent Vega]

Would we be able to find out what each lawsuit entailed--the details??

[classicrawker]

Would we be able to find out what each lawsuit entailed--the details??

I did a quick search but the only sites I found will give you the details for $$$.

I would think that the dos should be available from the court of record but don't know if they are available on the internet..............

[grigori]

Would we be able to find out what each lawsuit entailed--the details??

CR is right, it costs money to get the info even directly from the L.A. courthouse. Even the details are sparse and rarely contain docs. There's probably another way to research but it would be more expensive.

[Orsys]

Jeez, and the lawyers win.

[duff_rose]

Impressive.

[rock4eva]

And you lot complain because he doesn't put out more new music

[Nosaj Thing]

That's a lot. Wow.

[dalsh327]

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1508091/slash-duff-sue-axl-over-gnr-royalties.jhtml

[hellobeatle]

We don't know anything about them.

Just because they were "filed" doesn't mean much. Anyone can go to the courthouse, pay a $30 filing fee and *presto* lawsuit against Axl Rose. I'm sure the majority never made it to litigation because of a failure to serve the complaint to Axl before the trial started. Even when they did manage to serve them I'm sure they were dismissed by a 12(b)6, summary judgment or just straight up abandoned by the plaintiff before any real litigation ensued.

[Use Your Delusion 1]

what a waste of moneyz

[dalsh327]

https://web.archive.org/web/20040727133641/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

Throwback: 2004 lawsuit.

[wfuckinga]

https://web.archive.org/web/20040727133641/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

Throwback: 2004 lawsuit.

Page 3, line 8 Axl, Slash and Duff formed the original GNR. I'm fairly sure that original GN'R was Axl, Tracii, Ole, Rob and Izzy

[axlinkafayette]

what a clusterfuck

no wonder he did nothing in the mid to late 90's

[Snowmass]

What an idiot.....just sheds more light on his mental issues

[Amir]

I knew there are in effect 2 legal entities called Guns N' Roses, but I thought Axl was a member of both, with Slash and Duff being co-members of the original one? But according to that PDF, Axl left before creating the new legal entity of Guns N' Roses? I'm confused, what was the outcome of the lawsuit?

[ThinkAboutYou]

https://web.archive.org/web/20040727133641/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

Throwback: 2004 lawsuit.

Page 3, line 8 Axl, Slash and Duff formed the original GNR. I'm fairly sure that original GN'R was Axl, Tracii, Ole, Rob and Izzy

probably the legal entitiy of original GNR

[rockerman]

I knew there are in effect 2 legal entities called Guns N' Roses, but I thought Axl was a member of both, with Slash and Duff being co-members of the original one? But according to that PDF, Axl left before creating the new legal entity of Guns N' Roses? I'm confused, what was the outcome of the lawsuit?

one sneaky move that is possible for a corportation is to in effect go out of business then turn around and reform under same name and same assets under the same name and ironic enough with the same personell. A band is a corportation in its legal entity.

In effect Axl actually quit GNR(original)and took the name and certain amounts of the assets with him.. then in effect made Slash and Duff and Matt employees by reforming... Guns and Roses. All that had really changed at the point was the business structure and the divsision of assets and needless to say power sharing.. He had garnered the right to take the name in the event of a breakup...so he in in effect "quit" Guns and Roses and then started(nu) Guns and Roses with him having absolute control of the new entity.In the eyes of the law and Mr. Last Man Standing that was a breakup of the band. Slash and Duff and Matt were then put on equal footing with Duff and Slash having no power over the direction or say so of the business of the NEW band. Im sure they had to hammer out the division of the spoils and the question of remaining roayalties off of the past. This in effect had Slash stayed around would have made him a hired hand like Fink, BH, Fortus, Tommy , BBf and Ashaba. Axl would have been able to capitalize on the image of a unified GNR but in effect would have had the same structure it does now. This is why a reunion could never work.

When you had 5 guys alls contributing their goods to the betterment of the business..you can argue and fight and do what ever you need to do to get the song out there...in the new structure.. you have no say ultimately..you play for the brand and you play what the brand wants you to play and you have no say as to when where how and who you have to play with... long long way from the Sunset Strip...all corporate business like.. no gang of people living to get to the next level.

You look at that list of lawsuits levied on Axl.. I would bet that when they signed over thier part it was pointed out that all those lawsuits were aimed at AXl and GNR and that it would be smart to be out of the way of any and all responsibilities that were not Slash and Duffs in the making. Some of those lawsuits levied and GNR had nothing to do with anyone else but Axl.

[Amir]

I knew there are in effect 2 legal entities called Guns N' Roses, but I thought Axl was a member of both, with Slash and Duff being co-members of the original one? But according to that PDF, Axl left before creating the new legal entity of Guns N' Roses? I'm confused, what was the outcome of the lawsuit?

one sneaky move that is possible for a corportation is to in effect go out of business then turn around and reform under same name and same assets under the same name and ironic enough with the same personell. A band is a corportation in its legal entity.

In effect Axl actually quit GNR(original)and took the name and certain amounts of the assets with him.. then in effect made Slash and Duff and Matt employees by reforming... Guns and Roses. All that had really changed at the point was the business structure and the divsision of assets and needless to say power sharing.. He had garnered the right to take the name in the event of a breakup...so he in in effect "quit" Guns and Roses and then started(nu) Guns and Roses with him having absolute control of the new entity.In the eyes of the law and Mr. Last Man Standing that was a breakup of the band. Slash and Duff and Matt were then put on equal footing with Duff and Slash having no power over the direction or say so of the business of the NEW band. Im sure they had to hammer out the division of the spoils and the question of remaining roayalties off of the past. This in effect had Slash stayed around would have made him a hired hand like Fink, BH, Fortus, Tommy , BBf and Ashaba. Axl would have been able to capitalize on the image of a unified GNR but in effect would have had the same structure it does now. This is why a reunion could never work.

When you had 5 guys alls contributing their goods to the betterment of the business..you can argue and fight and do what ever you need to do to get the song out there...in the new structure.. you have no say ultimately..you play for the brand and you play what the brand wants you to play and you have no say as to when where how and who you have to play with... long long way from the Sunset Strip...all corporate business like.. no gang of people living to get to the next level.

You look at that list of lawsuits levied on Axl.. I would bet that when they signed over thier part it was pointed out that all those lawsuits were aimed at AXl and GNR and that it would be smart to be out of the way of any and all responsibilities that were not Slash and Duffs in the making. Some of those lawsuits levied and GNR had nothing to do with anyone else but Axl.

I understand the bit about nuGuns being a new legal entity, but what about old Guns? Obviously it still exists what with all the classic logo merch and royalties that need to be divided even to "Terminated Members", but that PDF says that Slash and Duff are the only people who are still part of that legal entity. Does that mean that Slash and Duff can just release whatever they want that's related to old Guns, and Axl technically has no veto rights on anything? I'm guessing this was successfully disputed since we've never seen Slash and Duff exercise that potential and Axl still holds up releases of old Guns-related music, merch, films, etc.

[dalsh327]

This site's a search for trademarks, there's some stuff that came up with Guns N' Roses in the search.

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp

[rockerman]

I knew there are in effect 2 legal entities called Guns N' Roses, but I thought Axl was a member of both, with Slash and Duff being co-members of the original one? But according to that PDF, Axl left before creating the new legal entity of Guns N' Roses? I'm confused, what was the outcome of the lawsuit?

one sneaky move that is possible for a corportation is to in effect go out of business then turn around and reform under same name and same assets under the same name and ironic enough with the same personell. A band is a corportation in its legal entity.

In effect Axl actually quit GNR(original)and took the name and certain amounts of the assets with him.. then in effect made Slash and Duff and Matt employees by reforming... Guns and Roses. All that had really changed at the point was the business structure and the divsision of assets and needless to say power sharing.. He had garnered the right to take the name in the event of a breakup...so he in in effect "quit" Guns and Roses and then started(nu) Guns and Roses with him having absolute control of the new entity.In the eyes of the law and Mr. Last Man Standing that was a breakup of the band. Slash and Duff and Matt were then put on equal footing with Duff and Slash having no power over the direction or say so of the business of the NEW band. Im sure they had to hammer out the division of the spoils and the question of remaining roayalties off of the past. This in effect had Slash stayed around would have made him a hired hand like Fink, BH, Fortus, Tommy , BBf and Ashaba. Axl would have been able to capitalize on the image of a unified GNR but in effect would have had the same structure it does now. This is why a reunion could never work.

When you had 5 guys alls contributing their goods to the betterment of the business..you can argue and fight and do what ever you need to do to get the song out there...in the new structure.. you have no say ultimately..you play for the brand and you play what the brand wants you to play and you have no say as to when where how and who you have to play with... long long way from the Sunset Strip...all corporate business like.. no gang of people living to get to the next level.

You look at that list of lawsuits levied on Axl.. I would bet that when they signed over thier part it was pointed out that all those lawsuits were aimed at AXl and GNR and that it would be smart to be out of the way of any and all responsibilities that were not Slash and Duffs in the making. Some of those lawsuits levied and GNR had nothing to do with anyone else but Axl.

I understand the bit about nuGuns being a new legal entity, but what about old Guns? Obviously it still exists what with all the classic logo merch and royalties that need to be divided even to "Terminated Members", but that PDF says that Slash and Duff are the only people who are still part of that legal entity. Does that mean that Slash and Duff can just release whatever they want that's related to old Guns, and Axl technically has no veto rights on anything? I'm guessing this was successfully disputed since we've never seen Slash and Duff exercise that potential and Axl still holds up releases of old Guns-related music, merch, films, etc.

Multiple layers of a corporation. There merchandising rights, royalties on music, who gets to play that music royalty free in future performances. WHo owns the old logos and at what %? Crteatve control and marketing control etc.... That was in the division of the spoils. Did Slash and Duff get bought out or do they still own shares in the corporation with no consideration for any new revenue off of nuGNR? Are they miniority stake holders in the Old GNR corporation.? Probably. Like any corporation they who have the majority stock can dictate the companys direction.

Duff and Slash could not do business as Guns and Roses. When Velvet Revolver formed they could play material that they had stock in but they could not use any of the old logos, promotion materials etc for VR.

Ratt and Warrant L.A. GUns and even QueensRyche now are in a battle to settle that very question . For a while there was two seperate bands touring and putting out music under the same name and logo.

Who actually owns the catalogue of old music? Many bands in the past did not own thier own music catalogue and the rights to it. For a while Paul McCartney owned some of Michael Jacksons material or vise versa.. maybe it was Michael owning some of the Beatles...anyone wanting to use his songs..including radio stations had to get his companies permission and pay a royalty. Owning the music catalogue is another form of revenue stream.

When my band was going we formed our entity like this: Breakneck Entertainment DBA; As "Nieghbors Kid"

Uzi Suicide Dba Guns and Roses is different than Black Frog Entertainment Dba Guns and Roses. Im just speculating but it could be that way.

THis was an issue when Axl blocked the use of old GNR material from being used in movies..that could have been a payday to the old group. Black Hawk Down wanted to use Welcome to the Jungle and was blocked by Axls veto of using it.. Just as he attempted to block Greatest Hits and Live Era this forced the lawsuit to settle that question. When SCOM was used in Big Daddy it wasnt the studio version of AFD but a NewGNR version..thus completely removing the revenue stream to Duff and Slash. Some have speculated that is why Axl went through the time and the expense to have GNR1999-2006 re record AFD.. to remove all due considerations to Slash and Duff.

Some see it as spiteful and petty on Axls part because he would have benifited as well. By controlling the old material..he in essence controls the revenue streams that are paid out to the old memebers of a completely different organization than the new GNR.

[axlsalinger]

The first half of Sweet Child in Big Daddy is the old band live. Second half is nuGuns. Probably split 50/50.

[IncitingChaos]

Well the part about Axl leaving the band, but getting to take the name with him supports everything Slash has been saying. It really is as simple as Axl leaving and starting his version of Guns N Roses and Asking Slash and Duff to be employees...unless I'm reading that part wrong.