Katt Williams vs. His Employees

Katt Williams was in the news for a legal dispute for the second time this month – this time for a dispute between him and five men who claim that he owes them a total of more than $125,000.

Katt Williams has a history of involvement in strange and sometimes violent lawsuits. Earlier this month, Williams’ former manager Mark Williams sued the comedian for allegedly punching him in the face and knocking him out for a period of 90 seconds. Without endorsing his alleged behavior, I’m impressed that the 5’5″ comedian could knock anyone out.

The current case against Williams alleges that he owes several men money for their work on his Live Nation tour, which went on between 2012 and 2013. The suit said that he owes Cortney Gilmore $80,000 for his work as an emcee on the tour, Evan Gunny $14,000 for his work as a DJ, Michael McGuire $10,000 for his work as a security guard, Michael Bogan $10,500 for his work as a security guard and Christopher Blanton $12,000 for his work as a security guard.

Cortney Gilmore et al. sued Williams and Live Nation Entertainment in Superior Court for promissory fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. If not unique, this case is interesting in that it contains apparently contradictory allegations. While further details of the case have yet to be released, we’ll take a look at what these terms mean and why Williams’ former employees might opt to sue with multiple allegations.

Legal Definitions

While all three legal terms amount to similar allegations, they each have a distinct meaning. Promissory fraud, also known as common law fraud, refers to cases in which a promise was made in which the promiser had no intention of keeping the promise. In order to prove common law fraud, the plaintiff needs to prove nine exhaustive elements. In simple terms, however, these elements add up to whether the promiser intended to mislead, whether the promisee legitimately believed and relied upon the promise and whether material damage or consequence ensued.

Breach of contract is substantially more simple. This can be established by indicating whether a contract existed, whether it was modified and whether one or more parties committed a material or minor breach. A minor breach occurs when a party doesn’t uphold his or her side of the contract to the letter, but does so in spirit, whereas a material breach occurs when a party fails to uphold the contract in a substantive, often tangible way. If Williams was late in paying employees, for example, this might be a minor breach. If the allegations that he failed to pay entirely are true, this would be considered a material breach.

Finally, unjust enrichment occurs when one party retains a benefit conferred by another party without offering compensation, when that benefit isn’t offered as a gift and compensation is reasonably expected. In this case, the plaintiffs’ services are the benefit, and they allege that Williams kept their services without offering the expected compensation. Typically, this term is used when there is no valid contract between parties.

Why use all of these overlapping, sometimes contradictory terms? It is difficult to say without knowing more, but it would seem that the plaintiffs are uncertain as to the solidity of their claim. Either there was no contract between themselves and Williams, or they doubt the contract’s validity. Either way, this case highlights the necessity for employees and contractors to have a comprehensive contract in place before any work is performed.