Source: Stephen J. Cohen / Getty
In 2020, West Coast legends — Snoop, Ice Cube, Too Short and E-40 – formed a super group called Mount Westmore.
TMZ reports that shortly after forming the supergroup entered into a licensing deal with a company called Westside Merchandising, which the group claims made huge promises about what their company could do only to over promise and under deliver.
Mount Westmore has filed a lawsuit claiming that Westside Merchandising made false promises to sway them away from bigger merchandise companies in order to get them to sign with Westside Merchandising.
Mount Westmore claims in their lawsuit viewed by TMZ that the rappers believe they could’ve made several bags going through the “retail stores it had partnerships with,” and that the merchandise wouldn’t be limited only to concert sales.
“Snoop and Ice Cube said Westside failed to provide accounting. The reports they did read said the merch sold $808K in sales from concert dates, more than $90K from stores, and $13K in e-commerce sales,” TMZ reports.
The rappers acknowledge that Westside paid them a large advance, but the rappers claim that they are still owed hundreds of thousands and they are suing for unspecified damages.
TMZ notes that Westside initially sued Snoop, Ice, E-40 and Too Short for breach of contract in November 2024, claiming that the rappers agreed that Westside would make all of their merchandise. “However, they claimed the 60-date tour didn’t happen, and the rappers only performed a handful of shows. Westside said it paid over $1.3 million, but the rappers failed to keep their end of the bargain. Both cases are ongoing.” TMZ reports.
“The countersuit is full of falsehoods and fabrication, and reeks of desperation,” John Fowler, Westside’s lawyer, told TMZ.
“The purpose is clearly to distract from their own fraud and contractual breaches which are outlined very clearly in our own amended complaint. To date, the other side has lost every motion they’ve brought in this case, and they are trying to cover up the mounting losses by filing a frivolous claim. The case is simple: the other side defrauded my client out of over $1.3 million, and caused many millions more in damages for failing to perform the services they promised. The Court has repeatedly denied the other side’s attempts to shield itself from basic discovery, even accusing the opposing lawyers of ‘borderline insubordination’ on the record. We look forward to trying this case.”
