The ongoing divorce between Dr. Dre and his estranged wife Nicole Young has had another development, if you’re still paying attention. There’s been charges filed, cases lost, and mistresses subpoenaed. Now, one of those mistresses is clapping back and calling the whole thing none of her business.
One of the more wild claims to emerge from the pending divorce were Nicole Young’s claims that due to the “community property” laws in the State of California, she co-owned the trademarks to Andre Young’s stage name, “Dr. Dre,” and also the trademark to the iconic album The Chronic – since Dre registered them in 1997. The couple married May 25, 1996.
Larry Chatman, who founded Dre’s company Record One with him a number of years ago, then accused Nicole Young of grand theft, after she wrote checks that allowed her to withdraw almost $400k combined from the business accounts.
Chatman had already weighed in on the divorce proceedings by way of already accusing Nicole Young of embezzling $353,000 from the account at the end of August, a charge already one that carries a lot of weight. He accused her of criminal conduct and wrote a letter that quickly went viral. Chatman then claimed that the ex-wife withdrew another $31K after receiving the letter.
She’d laid out in detail in court documents why she needs $2 million a month from Dre, including but not limited to $10K for cleaning and laundry, $135K for clothes, and over $900K for entertainment. TMZ reported that all told, the actual amount was $2.53 million dollars – and she wanted him to cover her attorney fees to the tune of $5 million dollars.
Both requests were denied.
Nicole then tried to subpoena statements from 3 of Dre’s mistresses, believing it will bolster her case in some way. Jillian Speer, a singer, entrepreneur Kili Anderson and Crystal Rogers aka Crystal Sierra, also known as the “Latin Queen of Hip-Hop.”
All three women have lawyered up and quickly, and now, Crystal Sierra’s lawyers have filed her own retort and also provided a small bit of insight into the case as it stands.
Sierra has filed her own motion to have the subpoena she was sent shut down, believing it is asking for information from her that is “irrelevant to the matter in dispute and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Sent September 11, 2020, she’s also asking the court to quash the subpoena and prevent her from sitting for a deposition.
Her motion also indicates that she has no further information about the prenup nor any information that would help Nicole Young with her battle over her pre-nuptial agreement between the two.
In a flurry of other accusations, according to site The Blast, Sierra also says that Young is simply trying to get information to further “enchance the value of the Youngs’ community property” and also pulls out some California law of her own – while seemingly acknowledging the affair.
“Further, any extra-marital affair would be irrelevant because California is a no-fault divorce state and “in a pleading or proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation of the parties, including depositions and discovery proceedings., evidence of specific acts of misconduct is improper and inadmissible.”