Lady Gaga will not pay out the promised $500,000 reward for the return of her French bulldogs kidnapped in 2021.
A Los Angeles district judge ruled Monday that Gaga was not obligated to pay Jennifer McBride, 53, for the return of her dogs because the woman had “unclean hands” in connection with the original dog snapping.
McBride filed a lawsuit against Gaga earlier this year after the singer failed to pay the woman who was charged over her involvement in the original 2021 incident. In the multimillion-dollar lawsuit, McBride accused Gaga of breach of contract, fraud by false promise and fraud by misrepresentation when she failed to pay “no questions asked” after the dogs’ safe return.
McBride sued not only for the $500,000 reward, but also for an additional $1.5 million in damages. However, according to Judge Holly J. Fujie, McBride is “not entitled” to a dime.
Lady Gaga’s dog kidnapped, dog walker brutally attacked
News of the dog-napping first made headlines in February 2021, when Gaga’s handler Ryan Fischer was brutally attacked while out with Gaga’s three dogs.
During the walk, two men jumped out of a car and tried to grab the pets, leading to a fight with Fischer. The fight escalated until one of the men pulled out a semi-automatic pistol and shot the handler in the chest, causing life-threatening injuries that led to repeated hospitalizations and ultimately the partial removal of a lung.
Two of the dogs, named Koji and Gustav, were stolen, while a third dog, Asia, was left behind. Gaga, who was touring Europe at the time, quickly took to Instagram to ask the public for help and offer a $500,000 reward for the return of her beloved pets.
The bulldogs were recovered just two days later when a woman who police initially believed was “uninvolved and unrelated” brought them back to the LAPD’s Olympic Community Police Station.
However, it later emerged that woman was McBride, who was in a relationship with Harold White, the father of one of the attack suspects. Both were charged with aiding and abetting attempted murder, along with suspects James Jackson, 18, Jaylin White, 19, and Lafayette Whaley, 27, who were charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to commit robbery and second-degree robbery.
Jackson was later sentenced to 21 years in prison for pulling the trigger, while White was sentenced to four years and Whaley to six years.
McBride was originally charged with one count of aiding and abetting and theft, but the aiding and abetting charge was dropped as part of a plea deal. McBride pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property valued at more than $950 and was sentenced to two years probation.
Dog-napping suspect sues Lady Gaga
McBride never received the $500,000 reward to which she was entitled despite her involvement in the crime.
In a lawsuit filed last year in a Los Angeles court, she claimed the singer deceived her into giving up the pets with the promise of a $500,000 reward.
Court documents obtained by USA TODAY at the time detailed McBride’s allegations against the pop star, including breach of contract, fraud by false promise and fraud by misrepresentation. In addition to seeking a $500,000 reward, she also sought legal fees and compensation for financial “damages,” “pain and suffering,” “mental anguish,” and “loss of enjoyment of life.”
In the lawsuit, McBride further argued that she had “fully fulfilled her obligation under the one-sided contract” and accused Gaga of promoting the reward “with the intent to defraud and to induce the public to rely upon and act upon it.” “. promise.”
The court originally dismissed McBride’s appeal in July, but allowed her to return after an appeal. This time, Judge Fujie not only ruled in Gaga’s favor, but also ruled that McBride could not refile the lawsuit.
The judge said in her earlier ruling that McBride was trying to “profit from her admitted wrongdoing.” In that decision, she ruled that Gaga was not required to honor her earlier promise to pay a reward, saying: “A party to a contract who behaves unlawfully in the making or performance of the contract is not entitled thereafter to benefit from his wrongdoing.” to profit by attempting to enforce the contract.
While McBridge argued that she was not involved in the theft and had no knowledge of its planning before the crime, the judge pointed out in her final decision: “In particular, she never claims that she did not know that the bulldogs had been stolen “after they were stolen.” stolen or at the time she received them.”