Kid Cudi has asked a California federal judge to dismiss music superstar M.I.A.’s $2.8 million lawsuit stemming from her removal from his Rebel Ragers Tour after a Dallas concert.
Cudi, whose legal name is Scott Mescudi, filed an anti-SLAPP motion arguing that the First Amendment protects his decision about the performers appearing on his tour.
Kid Cudi has removed M.I.A. from his tour after she opened for him in Dallas and went on a rant about “illegals” and “being canceled for being a Republican” and how she was performing to a bunch of illegals pic.twitter.com/PGEgJAMU5w
— FearBuck (@FearedBuck) May 4, 2026
U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett is handling the case in the Central District of California. The case is docketed as 2:26-cv-05768.
M.I.A., whose legal name is Mathangi “Maya” Arulpragasam, sued after performing at Dallas’ Dos Equis Pavilion. Reports differ on whether the May concert occurred May 2 or May 3.
According to court-related reports, M.I.A. made remarks concerning immigrants and visas that drew boos from the audience. Cudi subsequently removed her from the tour.
Cudi has said he would not keep someone on his tour who made offensive remarks that upset his fans.
M.I.A. later said she had been canceled over numerous issues. However, she said she never expected to face consequences for being a Republican voter.
Her complaint accuses Cudi of inducing a contract breach and interfering with her business relationships. She alleges Live Nation guaranteed more than $2.8 million for her tour appearances.
M.I.A. seeks $2.805 million in guaranteed fees and about $290,000 tied to a lost private-party opportunity. She also alleges losses involving merchandise, VIP offerings and licensing deals.
Live Nation is not a defendant.
Cudi’s attorney, Mathew Rosengart, argues the lawsuit targets protected expressive conduct. His motion relies on Symmonds v. Mahoney, a 2019 California appellate decision involving singer Eddie Money.
That court held that selecting musicians for a live performance could constitute protected First Amendment activity.
California’s anti-SLAPP statute allows defendants to challenge claims arising from protected activity. A plaintiff must then show a probability of prevailing.
M.I.A.’s attorney, Howard King, has not publicly responded to the motion. He previously said M.I.A. was “contractually allowed to say whatever she wanted on stage.”
Judge Garnett’s ruling will determine whether the claims proceed into discovery.
