Shaquille O'Neal might be retired from basketball — but he just scored a small victory off the court in his heated legal battle with a former associate.
Earlier this year, O'Neal and his business partner Michael Parris filed a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint upon each of them "because they are not California residents and do not have a sufficient relationship with the State of California to establish jurisdiction."
RadarOnline.com can exclusively report that Shaq got his way after a judge granted his request last week.
This development came afterDonnie Wilson took legal action against O'Neal and the NBA legend's production company, Jersey Legends Productions, for breach of contract and "numerous" labor code violations. His lawsuit stated that Jersey Legends ended up being sold to a third party in March 2023 and that he never saw a "dime."
Wilson claimed that he helped work on the Academy award-winning project Queen of Basketball and an animated short film called HeadNoise but was not compensated for his efforts at Jersey Legends.
He accused the defendants of promising him an ownership interest in Jersey Legends, LLC, in exchange for his services in producing films and other media content, claiming they didn't hold up their end of the bargain.
This outlet told you first that O'Neal asked a California judge to throw out the lawsuit brought by his ex-associate, claiming the plaintiff's allegations "lack merit."
As we previously reported, O'Neal also said Wilson brought the lawsuit in the wrong state, noting in court docs obtained by RadarOnline.com that he lives in Georgia and Parris lives in Virginia while clarifying that he has no ties to California.
He said his business is a Delaware limited liability company. "I moved to the State of Georgia prior to 2017 and have made my home there ever since," he told the court.
O'Neal argued the lawsuit should be dismissed and refiled in the proper state.
"Defendants contend that they do not have sufficient contacts with California insofar as their only contacts with California that are relevant to this dispute are their interactions with Plaintiff directly, which are not sufficient," the court docs stated.
Never miss a story — sign up for the RadarOnline.com newsletter to get your daily dose of dope. Daily. Breaking. Celebrity news. All free.
"The Court concurs with Defendants: the contacts described by Plaintiff either are contacts with Plaintiff himself or contacts which are random and fortuitous or do not relate to the claims asserted," the docs read. "Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate purposeful availment and has failed to demonstrate that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants."