⚖️COURT UPDATE⚖️Cardi B has SCORED an early procedural WIN in the Nevada lawsuit brought by Jane Doe / Paxton Fedell over the July 29, 2023 Drai’s Beachclub incident.
According to a May 6, 2026 hearing transcript, the Clark County District Court DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Cardi B’s contribution claim. The court said it was TOO EARLY TO DECIDE, before discovery, whether Cardi B’s alleged conduct was an intentional tort that would legally bar her from seeking contribution.
The issue centers on Cardi B’s claim that if she is found liable to Paxton Fedell for any damages, Jane Doe should share responsibility because Doe allegedly threw ice and a drink at Cardi B’s face first. Cardi B’s side has argued her reaction was reflexive, fear-based, and tied to self-defense.
Judge Bita Yeager explained during the hearing that battery is generally a general-intent act, not a specific-intent act, but said that did not change her ruling. The court found that the plaintiffs were asking her to make factual determinations about Cardi B’s intent too early in the case.
The court said no discovery had been completed yet and that questions about whether Cardi B’s response was intentional, reflexive, provoked, or self-defense-based may be more appropriate for summary judgment after a factual record is developed.
The written order, entered May 29, 2026, states that Cardi B alleged she “reflexively” threw a microphone in self-defense toward the person who allegedly threw ice and a drink in her face during the Drai’s performance. The order also notes that Cardi B asserted affirmative defenses including self-defense, adequate provocation, and comparative fault.
The order further finds that Cardi B’s contribution counterclaim is allowed to proceed at this stage because Nevada law permits alternative and inconsistent defenses, and because dismissing the contribution claim before discovery would cut off a statutory remedy before the intent issue is developed.
In the same hearing, the court also addressed case scheduling. The parties discussed a trial estimate of roughly 14 days, including jury selection, and the court noted that because Cardi B is a widely known public figure, jury selection could require additional time.
Moreover; The plaintiffs have now filed an answer to Cardi B’s counterclaim. Jane Doe denies Cardi B’s battery, assault, and contribution allegations, denies that Cardi B is entitled to relief, and raises multiple affirmative defenses.
Those defenses include consent, invited conduct, assumption of risk, comparative fault, lack of causation, self-defense and privilege, failure to mitigate, no compensable injury, speculative damages, unclean hands, lack of joint liability, and an argument that contribution is barred to the extent Cardi B engaged in intentional conduct.
Jane Doe is asking the court to dismiss Cardi B’s counterclaims with prejudice, enter judgment in her favor on the counterclaims, deny Cardi B any damages, and award Jane Doe costs and attorneys’ fees where permitted by law.
The case now moves forward with Cardi B’s contribution claim still alive, while Jane Doe formally disputes the counterclaims and preserves defenses for discovery and later motion practice. FULL DOCUMENT BELOW👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾
RECORDERS TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING -
drive.google.com/file/d/1rbE…
ENTRY OF ORDER -
drive.google.com/file/d/1sEc…
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM -
drive.google.com/file/d/1M1R…