Memphitz Loses Lawsuit Against Love & Hip-Hop Atlanta Star K Michelle
Memphitz Loses Lawsuit Against Love & Hip-Hop Atlanta Star K Michelle
BHR Hollywood Reports........After nearly three years of legal wrangling, Mickey 'MempHitz' Wright has lost his defamation suit against his ex-girlfriend K. Michelle and the producers of the hit VH1 reality show Love and Hip Hop: Atlanta.

Wright, who also served as Michelle's manager, failed to prove his character was defamed after admitting to his involvement in specific altercations with K. Michelle.
K Michelle

The Fulton County judge Robert McBurney decided in favor of the defendants.

In general, the allegations were true, Wright is deemed a public figure as a former TV host and husband of singer and reality star Toya Wright and the production company “exercised due diligence concerning Defendant Pate’s domestic violence claims,” according to final court judgment. “The record shows that they reasonably believed Defendant Pate during production of LHHA and that they still do today.”
Wright in depositions acknowledged he got into a physical altercation with K Michelle in a Memphis hotel altercation in 2009 and had spent money from Jive Record’s budget for jewelry, not to help her career, and had sent a text message threatening to kill K. Michelle’s son.

 That content of the text was bleeped out on the show, negating its import in the case.

The summary judgment goes into detail about the argument between K Michelle and Wright where Wright admits he put a pillow and/or his hands over her mouth to try to shut her up.
K Michelle

 She reasonably thought he was trying to kill her. He later tried to backtrack from his initial acknowledgments, according to a court filing by the defendants seeking summary judgment.

Although K Michelle wasn’t a defendant in the original case, she was added later. The other defendants are Viacom, which owns VH1 and the production companies NFGTV and Monami

The judge was also displeased that it took several months for Wright to specify what was defamatory, noting that the delays “consumed the resources of the Court and Defendants and ultimately required an order of the Court to fix.”