American hip-hop icon Jay-Z has been awarded more than $119,000 in legal fees following the conclusion of a nearly decade-long paternity dispute involving Rymir Satterthwaite and his godmother, Lillie Coley.
A federal judge ordered Coley to pay Jay-Z approximately $119,235.45 in legal costs, bringing the protracted case to an end. The ruling was issued under California’s anti-SLAPP law, with the court stating that Coley “shall take nothing” from the music mogul.
The legal fees award follows years of repeated attempts by Satterthwaite and Coley to compel Jay-Z to submit to a DNA test.
The lawsuit alleged that Jay-Z fathered a child with Wanda Satterthwaite in the early 1990s. Wanda initially filed for child support in New Jersey in 2010. After her health deteriorated, Coley assumed responsibility for pursuing the case.
Read also:
- Breaking: Supreme Court upholds conviction of Aminu Sule Lamido over undeclared $40,000
- Sevilla, Villareal, others court Umar Sadiq
- Court restrains bank, others from paying former deputy governor
That initial lawsuit was dismissed in 2012 after a judge ruled it had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction. The claim was refiled in 2014 and gained renewed public attention in 2015, when Coley and Satterthwaite accused Jay-Z of deliberately avoiding a DNA test.
Coley further alleged that the rapper suppressed evidence, mishandled records, and misrepresented key facts regarding his ties to New Jersey.
The dispute dragged on for several years, marked by multiple motions to dismiss and amendments to the complaint. In 2023, Satterthwaite filed a federal paternity suit against Jay-Z but later withdrew it, citing undisclosed reasons.
At the time, he insisted the matter was not resolved, saying he had not accepted any settlement and intended to continue pursuing the claim. Despite that assertion, the court proceedings ultimately concluded in Jay-Z’s favour.
Responding to the latest motion, Jay-Z’s legal team maintained that the allegations had already been examined and dismissed by multiple courts, describing them as unfounded.
They also noted that continued legal action by the plaintiffs had previously resulted in a contempt ruling, citing what they described as persistent harassment and disregard for court orders.
