Metro Boomin Wins Civil Battery Case in California Court
Table of Contents
Case Background
Vanessa LeMaistre, the Plaintiff, filed a civil complaint against renowned music producer Leland T. Wayne, publicly known as Metro Boomin, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Ms. LeMaistre filed the case on October 29, 2024, initiating a legal battle that lasted nearly a year before it reached trial. The core of the dispute centered on allegations of non-consensual contact that Ms. LeMaistre claimed occurred during a professional encounter.
Cause
The complaint alleged that Mr. Wayne committed civil sexual battery and related misconduct. Ms. LeMaistre maintained that the incident took place during a meeting where the two discussed potential professional collaboration. She claimed the Defendant’s actions went beyond professional boundaries and were uninvited and non-consensual, leading to the lawsuit.
Injury
In her complaint, the Plaintiff claimed she suffered significant personal and professional harm as a direct result of the alleged incident. Ms. LeMaistre sought recovery for severe emotional distress, ongoing mental suffering, and lasting reputational damage, arguing the experience severely impacted her career prospects and psychological well-being.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff sought substantial monetary compensation from Mr. Wayne. The total damages package included claims for both economic and non-economic harm. Specifically, she sought funds to cover past and future lost earnings, medical expenses related to her emotional distress, and compensation for pain, suffering, and emotional trauma. Furthermore, Ms. LeMaistre asked the jury to award punitive damages, asserting the Defendant’s conduct was malicious and oppressive and required punishment to deter future similar behavior.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The trial for the case, presided over by the Honorable R. Gary Klausner, began on September 23, 2025, in Courtroom 850. Over several days, both sides presented their evidence, cross-examined witnesses, and offered their final arguments before the case went to the jury.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Vanessa LeMaistre
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Michael J. Willemin | Monica Hincken | Robert J. Girard, II | Omar H. Bengali | Molly Zhu
Defendant: Leland T. Wayne p/k/a Metro Boomin
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Lawrence C. Hinkle, II | Justin H. Sanders | Bobby L. Daniels, Jr. | Stephanie Jones Nojima
· Experts for Defendant(s): Elizabeth Loftus | April D.Thames
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The core of the Plaintiff’s case rested on the allegation of civil sexual battery. Counsel for Ms. LeMaistre argued that the evidence presented, including the Plaintiff’s testimony and corroborating details, showed a clear pattern of non-consensual action. They maintained that Ms. LeMaistre explicitly objected to Mr. Wayne’s contact, and that the Defendant willfully disregarded her clear boundaries, thereby causing the psychological and professional injuries detailed in the complaint.
Defense
The defense team for Mr. Wayne mounted a categorical denial of all allegations. They asserted that the alleged incident never happened as the Plaintiff described it, arguing that Ms. LeMaistre’s account lacked credibility and that her version of events contained inconsistencies the defense exploited during cross-examination. They contended that the lawsuit was an attempt to damage Mr. Wayne's reputation and extract a large financial settlement. Furthermore, they argued that even if the interaction occurred, it fell far short of meeting the legal standard for civil sexual battery.
Jury Verdict
After hearing all the evidence, testimony, and final arguments, the jury deliberated for two days. On September 25, 2025, the seven-person panel returned its verdict to the Court. The jury found in favor of the Defendant, Leland T. Wayne, on all causes of action Ms. LeMaistre asserted.
The verdict form, confirmed by the Court, showed that the jury did not find sufficient evidence to hold Mr. Wayne liable for the civil battery claim or any related misconduct. Because the jury found the Defendant not liable, they did not proceed to consider the questions of economic, non-economic, or punitive damages.
Judge R. Gary Klausner subsequently entered the judgment on October 24, 2025, formally concluding the case. The judgment officially declared that Ms. LeMaistre “shall take nothing by way of the Complaint filed in this action,” and that Mr. Wayne, as the prevailing party, may recover his costs from the Plaintiff in accordance with applicable law.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com