Cardi B Court Victory: Why the $50M Lawsuit Failed

In a significant ruling for the music industry, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. has dismissed a $50 million copyright infringement lawsuit against Belcalis Almánzar, known professionally as Cardi B. The litigation, which also named Atlantic Records and Warner Music Group as defendants, centered on allegations that the rapper’s 2024 single “Enough (Miami)” unlawfully sampled the 2021 track “Greasy Frybread.” The court’s decision, issued on March 30, 2026, primarily rested on jurisdictional deficiencies and a critical failure by the plaintiffs to secure federal copyright registration before initiating the suit.

This legal victory adds to a series of successful courtroom defenses for the Grammy-winning artist. The ruling clarifies the stringent requirements for pursuing intellectual property claims in federal court and underscores the limitations of state-level “common law” claims in matters primarily governed by federal statutes. While the dismissal was granted “without prejudice,” meaning the plaintiffs could theoretically refile in another jurisdiction, the court noted that further attempts to amend the current complaint would be “futile.”

The Core of the Dispute: “Enough (Miami)” vs. “Greasy Frybread”

The lawsuit was originally filed in July 2024 by producers Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar, who perform under the name Kemika1956. The plaintiffs alleged that Cardi B’s track reproduced, distributed, and publicly performed elements of their song “Greasy Frybread” without authorization. “Greasy Frybread” gained notable recognition after being featured in the FX series Reservation Dogs and was created in collaboration with artist Sten Joddi.

The plaintiffs sought $50 million in damages, citing not only copyright infringement but also defamation, unfair competition, and misappropriation of intellectual property. They claimed that the alleged theft of their work caused significant reputational harm, leading to them being “blacklisted” within the music industry. However, the defense maintained that the instrumental for “Enough (Miami),” produced by OG Parker and DJ SwanQo, was an entirely original creation.

Judicial Reasoning: Jurisdiction and Registration

The ruling by Judge Rodriguez highlighted two insurmountable hurdles for the Kemika1956 legal team: personal jurisdiction and the Copyright Act’s registration requirement.

1. Jurisdictional Limits: The plaintiffs attempted to bring the case in a Texas federal court, arguing that Cardi B’s multiple concert performances in the state established a sufficient legal connection. The court rejected this, stating that her appearances were part of a “broader national tour” and did not constitute specific targeting of the Texas market for the purpose of this litigation.

2. Registration Timing: Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a work must be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office before an infringement lawsuit can be filed in federal court. While the plaintiffs eventually secured a registration on October 31, 2025, the court found this was too late to salvage the claims regarding conduct that occurred prior to that date.

    

“Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that Almanzar targeted Texas for concert performances, rather than simply including Texas venues within a broader concert tour in numerous states,” Judge Rodriguez wrote in his decision.

 

Analysis: Why the $50 Million Claim Collapsed

The dismissal of the $50 million settlement rumors and the broader lawsuit highlights a common pitfall in celebrity litigation: the intersection of federal preemption and procedural technicalities. When the plaintiffs realized their federal copyright claim was weak due to the lack of timely registration, they attempted to reframe their arguments as Texas state law claims.

Judge Rodriguez ruled that these state-level claims were preempted by the federal Copyright Act. Essentially, because the “gravamen” (the core) of the complaint was the unauthorized use of a musical work, it must be governed by federal law, which requires registration. Furthermore, the defamation claims were dismissed because the plaintiffs could not prove that “Enough (Miami)” made any specific reference to them or their reputations.

Key Facts: Case Comparison and Timeline

What the Ruling Means for the Music Industry

This case serves as a vital reminder for independent producers and songwriters regarding the legal status of their works. While “common law” copyright exists the moment a song is recorded, the ability to sue for statutory damages and attorney fees in the United States is contingent upon formal registration.

For major labels like Atlantic Records and parent company Warner Music Group, the ruling reinforces the “purposeful availment” standard. Simply making music available online nationwide does not mean a label can be sued in any state the plaintiff chooses. This protects artists and corporations from being forced to defend lawsuits in “forum-shopped” jurisdictions where they have no specific business targeting beyond general availability.

Human and Societal Impact: Artist Rights vs. Alleged Infringement

From a public interest perspective, the case reflects the ongoing tension between high-profile “superstar” artists and independent creators. While Kemika1956’s attorney, Robert R. Flores, stated that the claims “remain very much alive” and that they intend to pursue the case in a more appropriate forum, the initial dismissal is a major setback.

For Cardi B, the victory allows her to continue her “Little Miss Drama Tour” without the shadow of a massive financial judgment. Her legal representative, Lisa F. Moore, expressed satisfaction with the court’s “careful consideration,” noting that the artist remains committed to defending her creative integrity. As “Enough (Miami)” continues to receive airplay and streaming revenue, the ruling ensures that these royalties remain undisturbed by the current litigation.

Broader Legal Significance

The Cardi B court victory in April 2026 follows a trend of courts being increasingly skeptical of broad copyright claims that lack foundational procedural compliance. Similar to her 2022 victory in a tattoo-related copyright dispute, this case demonstrates the effectiveness of a proactive defense strategy that focuses on jurisdictional and statutory requirements.

Legal experts suggest that this ruling will likely discourage “scattershot” litigation where plaintiffs file in favorable jurisdictions without first ensuring their intellectual property is fully registered under federal law.

This is informational only and not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney for your situation.

Stay sharp with Ongoing Now!

Source and Data Limitations: This report is based on federal court records from the Southern District of Texas and official rulings issued by Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. on March 30, 2026. Primary sources include case filings from “Fraustro et al v. Almanzar et al,” as well as official statements from counsel for both Belcalis Almánzar and the plaintiffs. This article excludes unverified social media rumors regarding specific private settlement amounts and focuses strictly on the $50 million figure cited in official court documents. Data regarding song performance is sourced from Billboard and YouTube public metrics as of April 2026.