Lion King Composer SUES Comedian - Gets SLAPPED With Legal Feed! Hakuna Matata!

You all remember that lawsuit of the Lion King? I have taken a particular affinity to this particular story because it was so absurd from the get-go. And I forget when I discovered it. When I discovered it, I immediately fell in love with the absolute stupidity of the story. The man who composed the Lion King song, the famous, the culturally revolutionary Lion King song, didn't like the fact that another dude was making a little bit of fun at his work of art, his Mona Lisa, in his own mind. We're going to get to the artist and how you should not take yourself too seriously in life because nobody makes it out alive and you will ultimately get punished for your haughtiness. The comedian, his name is Learnmore Jonas, made this joke and kept repeating it on stage, much to the dismay of the creator of the work of art I grew tall. That's the wrong one. That's the one. I don't want to play this one yet. This is the guy who takes himself too seriously. We got to hear the joke first. And the joke made the rounds. Hold up. It's this one. Yeah, it's this one right here. Okay, let me put this up. And we're going to play the clip. And you're going to hear the incredibly offensive joke that warranted a lawsuit. Sarcasm. Let's sing it like... ♪ Nants ingonyama giti baba ♪ You were way off. ♪ Nants ingonyama giti baba ♪ All right. Yeah, what does it mean? It means, Luke, there's a lion. Oh my God. You're joking. That is not what that means. That's exactly what it means. It means, look, there's a lion. Oh my God. Luke, there's a lion. Oh my God. It's a lion. This whole time, I thought it was like this, like this beautiful, majestic... Look here, there's a bull**** lion. It's a lion. Now, by the way, thou shalt not mock the work of the artist. The guy ended up suing him and I remember watching this at the time. The clip where the man was sued, I was like, this looks like shtick. It's too absurd to be reality. But lo and behold, it wasn't shtick. He got served while he was doing a show, apparently at the Laugh Factory. Was misfortunate. What is this? What does this say? Service. Oh, ----, I just got served. Oh, ----. Oh my God. For those who are wondering what this is for, I did a joke about the Lion King. I don't know, you saw it? That was me, yeah. There's a lion. We can pause there. He gets served and I thought it was a joke. I thought it was part of the shtick, although he did look sincerely nervous. And when you understand the nature of the man who sued him, you will understand why he sued him. And now you know the outcome of this. The lawsuit from the plaintiff was not only tossed, but he was ordered to pay $41,000 in legal fees. This is what the man who takes himself way too seriously, and listen to what he has to say, appreciate the concept of confession through projection, and understand that everything the artist, the composer, the man who created something that needs to be revered and cannot be mocked, everything he says about the comedian is true of himself. Listen to this. I am on tour with my friend Hans Zimmer. I'm waking up to the reality that there's an idiot who's gone viral on our iconic Nansen Gonyama, misleading the world. Can you understand he's actually, he's actually did this. I'm on tour with Hans Zimmer, who's a very famous composer. And I found a buffoon who's making fun of my art. Oh. I tried to engage him. There is the idea that being a comedian means you get away with everything. Not necessarily so. I'm a huge fan of comedy. Can you imagine somebody saying, I'm a huge fan of comedy? It's such an arrogant and above all stupid thing. I'm a huge fan of comedy. It's like saying, I'm a fan of food. I like things that are essential to life. I'm a huge fan of comedy. This guy sits here and says that the comedian is the one who thinks he can get away with anything because of his status as a comedian. When this guy here wants everything and to get away with everything because he is the composer of the culturally iconic. Man, I don't want to say it. Okay. From high school, I tried to engage this young man from Zimbabwe. I tried to engage with him. I guess it's important to mention where he's from, just so it is clear. That he actually understands the language. And when he said it translates into, look, a lion. Oh my God, it's a lion. He was actually right. I don't know. When I'm asking, did y'all know? Because I know y'all didn't. It's easy in the world that we live in to be sucked into distortions, says the man who's touring with Hans Zimmer. It's easy to be sucked into our own distortions. Yes, it is, sir. He's an artist wannabe. I am a true artist and no one shall mock my creation. Can you imagine this guy, after everything you just heard, calling anybody else on earth arrogant? I'm here with Hans Zimmer. We've had our morning champagne. I don't know why he's German. We had our morning champagne, our mimosas. I tried to engage with this idiot. He was so arrogant. So that's the guy that took himself a wee bit too seriously, sued on one count of defamation and another count of confusing, passing off of sorts. We're going to get to it. He had to drop the state defamation claim when faced with a lawsuit. And he ultimately lost on the other two charges as well, or the other two claims as well, but now has been ordered to pay $41,000 in legal fees to the defense for having acted a fool. This is the judgment. The Honorable Josephine L. Station, United States District Court, in, what's going on here? Plaintiff Libelheim Moraque is the creator of the original performer of Nants ingonyama baba. Let me just, for the fun of this, let's go over here and just say, oh, let's translate this. Translate to English while we do this. He's the creator of it. Defendant Learnmore, I'm not going to try to pronounce his last name, Moraque is a comedian and content creator. Defendant appeared on a podcast. He talked about that. We saw that part. Okay, on March 16th, plaintiff filed the instant action, bringing claims for one, misleading representation in violation of the Lanham Act, and two, defamation per se, three, trade libel, four, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against defendant for defendant's mischaracterization of the true meaning of Nants ingonyama. You know what it translates to? Here comes the lion among us, father, or here comes the lion father. That's what it translates into using a basic translation. Okay, March 5th, 2026, defendant filed a motion to strike pursuant to California's anti-slap statute and a motion to dismiss pursuant to federal rule of procedure, yada, yada, yada. Defendant argued in relevant part that it should prevail on the anti-slap motion because First Amendment borrows all of plaintiff's state law claims. Before plaintiff filed any opposition to the anti-slap motion, the Piles Party filed a stipulation to extend plaintiff's time to file an amended complaint, the First Amendment complaint, the fact. The court granted the stipulation and plaintiff filed a First Amendment complaint on June 8th, 2026. That's two months ago. Because the anti-slap motion was directed at the original complaint, the court denied as moot the anti-slap motion when plaintiff filed the First Amendment complaint. The First Amendment complaint. So you have your original complaint, you then have your First Amendment, you can have your Second Amendment complaint. I don't know what the rules are in terms of how many times you can amend, whether or not you need permission after a certain point in time. He amended the complaint to drop the state defamation claim. So it says the First Amendment complaint no longer contained allegations regarding defendant's purported mischaracterization of plaintiff's work. Rather, the First Amendment complaint focused on defendant's enterprise and its relation to plaintiff, including defendant's, quote, online storefront marketing on, it's a lion, line of apparel, and goods derived from plaintiff's composition. I would actually argue that those are goods derived from the defendant's comedic genius and commercial acumen. Plaintiff's alleged the defendant's commercial use of the association between plaintiff and signature work is likely to cause and has caused consumers to be confused as to whether plaintiff is affiliated with defendant's merchandise, performances, and content. Plaintiff brought claims under one false association, false endorsement in violation of the Lanham Act, and two false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Shortly thereafter, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the case. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. So they agreed to drop the case because obviously it's going nowhere. It never was going anywhere, and it was only going to incur more and more legal costs that the plaintiff was invariably going to have to file. So they agreed, we'll drop the case. After they drop it, defendant now moves to recover attorney's fees and costs, expending in litigation his anti-slap motion, arguing he prevailed on the anti-slap motion because plaintiff voluntarily abandoned every state law claim after defendant filed the anti-slap motion. We don't need to get into it. How much more? It's a short motion, but the bottom line, they come to the conclusion that because you dropped it, doesn't mean you didn't lose it. You don't have to go to court and adjudicate and have a judge say, if you drop the claims because you're facing an anti-slap, you lost, and now you gotta go pay the fees because that's what the law says. The court thus concludes that defendant succeeded in his objective and prevailed on his anti-slap motion. He is therefore entitled to attorney's fees and costs. Yada, yada, yada. All right, fine here. The court next considers the amount of the attorney's fees to be awarded. Listen to this, people. I'm not judging the lawyers. They gotta try and play the game. The amount of an attorney fee awarded under anti-slap statute is computed by the trial court in accordance with the familiar Lodestar method. After all briefing on the present motion has been submitted, the court ordered defendant's counsel to submit an itemized spreadsheet detailing the time counsel spent on each task. Counsel has submitted a spreadsheet showing a total of 45,000, let's round it up to $46,000 in fees for the anti-slap motion. I'm not saying that they, you know, they're scoundrels. This is just the price of lawfare, 45,000 bucks. Go through the partner, 26 years experience, yada, yada, yada. Although defendant requests, oh, here, let's write it like this. He spent 28.1 hours litigating the anti-slap issues. Mr. Hansen, an associate with around six years, spent 33 hours. It's really not that much. Having reviewed the spreadsheet, the court finds the time expended by counsel on the anti-slap motion and the present fee to be reasonable. The court further finds that Mr. Sullivan's normal hourly rate of $850. People, just bear in mind, it's $850 of hourly rates, but it's not, you don't get to, A, you don't get to collect on every hour you say that you work, but my goodness, does it still average out to a buttload of money, exorbitant fees that parties are compelled to incur because of arrogant pomposity, as came from the plaintiff in this case. 850 bucks, and the other guy, he's a discount, 475. You know what my hourly rate was when I was practicing? 250 Canadian, because I was a lone practitioner and I didn't have to have the overhead to charge excessive fees that nobody could afford. Now, it gives you good problems that you end up dealing with more clients than you can handle. This is, and this is American, $850 an hour, that's wild. Okay, fine. However, for several tasks completed by Mr. Hanson, the spreadsheet erroneously used Mr. Sullivan's higher hourly rate. Okay, fine, so they reduced it. Although defendant requested the court apply a fee enhancement of at least three times the Lowe's star, the court does not find a fee enhancement is warranted here. Defendant's counsel represents that they took the case on a contingency basis. However, they were still paid some fees by defendants, and we'll get them back from the court. And while defendant counsel certainly appears qualified, they have not provided an explanation as to why this case required exceptional skill to justify an award of fees beyond their stated normal rates. Accordingly, the court finds the reasonable amount of attorney's fees, $40,000 rounded up. For the above reasons, defendant is ordered to pay within five days of the issuance of this order. Well, I hope the tour that you were on with Hans Zimmer is very profitable, Mr. Plaintiff. Absurdities. And I say, I don't wish litigation on anybody. And even if you think you're right, as this guy clearly did going around with Hans Zimmer, Hans Zimmer's like, are you going to let him get away with that? He's making fun of your original work. This would be like somebody referring to Mona Lisa as having a potato forehead. I'm gonna play you something that's gonna make you laugh. It's a Lonely Island song, it's classic. And I'll play it after because otherwise it gets copy claimed by Commitube when I post these clips. Hans Zimmer saying to him, he had the balls to make fun of your work of art. You must sue him. $40,000 poorer now as a result of that. And by the way, you just gave the guy about another decade of comedic content material for his standup bit. So congratulations. Like, share, subscribe.