The Houston Hottie seems to be living in the courtroom as she’s involved in three separate court cases at the moment.
Megan Thee Stallion continues to wade through a world of legal battles as she not only sues a media personality while facing a lawsuit from a former photographer, but the case surrounding the 2020 shooting continues to unravel.
The Houston Hottie, real name Megan Pete, recently sued Milagro Gramz, real name Milagro Cooper, for operating a smear campaign during the California v Daystar Peterson trial. According to the suit, Cooper allegedly insulted and harassed the rapper during the length of the trial as well as spread lies and a deepfake pornographer of Pete.
A trial date for the suit against Cooper has been set for September 8, 2025, according to court documents. The court of the Southern District of Florida also laid out a schedule for pre-trial actions, including Dec. 30 as the day for all motions for pleading amendments or additional parties to be finalized.
Cooper’s Florida-based attorney filed a motion asking for more time to go over the material. The motion notes that with Cooper’s response due on Nov. 21 and only getting the Florida-based counsel on Nov. 19, the media personality requests to have until Dec. 21 to appropriately respond.
Per Meghann Cuniff’s reports, the court approved the motion and updated the trial schedule. A status conference will now be held on Dec. 2, which will highlight whether jurisdictional discovery is necessary. Jurisdictional discovery serves as the process where both parties present evidence to determine if the court has jurisdiction over the case.
As Pete’s suit against Cooper highlights an aspect of the trial surrounding the 2020 shooting, the original case brought against Tory Lanez — real name Daystar Peterson — had an interesting update.
Peterson filed various petitions to overturn his conviction and decade-long sentence. His newest petition alleged the prosecution failed to preserve evidence that could have been useful to the defense, according to a court document obtained by journalist Meghann Cuniff.
“[Peterson] asserts that the prosecution misplaced and failed to preserve the firearm as well as the shell casings and bullet fragments, which precludes him from testing those items and DNA material,” the court document read.
The Los Angeles County Superior Court officially denied Peterson’s petition, noting that he failed to provide evidence to support his allegations. To further prove that the firearm never went missing, the court included three declarations from three figures — two of which came from the Los Angeles Police Department.
Martin Preciado, a senior property officer for LAPD, signed a declaration that verified the Evidence and Property Management Division’s possession of the firearm, its magazine along with the bullet casings and fragments.
A criminalist by the name of Randy Zapeda, who works for LAPD’s Forensic Science Division, conducted a DNA analysis of the firearm. Zapeda would later testify at the trial regarding the results.
“The items involved in my analysis were the swab of the handgun, swab of the magazine, and the reference buccal sample from Daystar Peterson,” Zapeda wrote in his declaration.
Another nail in Peterson’s coffin comes in a footnote of the court’s official response to his petitions. The fifth footnote, on page 12, asserts that trial evidence proved Peterson’s guilt and no new evidence established his innocence.
As Peterson’s attempts to prove his innocence failed, Pete’s former photographer seems to be hitting a snag in his case against the Houston Hottie.
Ronald L. Zambrano, a west coast based lawyer representing Emilio Garcia — the former photographer in question, missed a pre-trial conference in Manhattan federal court.
Zambrano filed a declaration in an attempt to avoid court sanctions, claiming he thought he could attend the hearing via phone call. He said he didn’t know about the Nov. 6 conference, and he had to learn about it from defense counsel.
Upon looking at the public records system, he saw the hearing scheduled for Nov. 6 and he assumed he didn’t have to attend in person. His assumption was due to the widespread participation in remote court proceedings throughout the state of California.
“In retrospect, I should not have assumed that I could have participated in this conference remotely by either telephone or video conference because the word ‘in-person’ was not included in the Court’s order,” Zambrano wrote in the declaration.
The California-based lawyer represents Garcia who accuses the Houston Hottie and her management company, Roc Nation, of owing him lost wages. His loss of wages allegedly stems from misclassifying him as a contract employee instead of a full-time employee.
Garcia accuses Pete of hostile work environment harassment, noting the time the “Cobra” rapper had sex with another woman in front of him while in a car. Pete would allegedly disparage him for complaining about the incident.
Pete’s legal team didn’t hold back when they responded to Garcia’s lawsuit:
“[Garcia] is a con artist who is manipulating the judicial system to act as his publicist and bullhorn in a desperate attempt to boost his failed singing career while trying to tear down the successful career of Ms. Pete,” they said in their Mar 29 filing.
They denied the alleged incident in the car, noting that Garcia added the allegation for the sake of garnering headlines. Pete’s legal team filed a declaration that alleged that Zambrano has not prosecuted the case diligently, and they asked for the judge to sanction him for $6,000 to cover attorney fees for both Pete and Roc Nation.
As the case moved from California to New York, Pete and Roc Nation were able to find legal counsel licensed in New York. The same can’t be said for Zambrano as he and his associates are only licensed in California, and as of Nov. 12, they weren’t able to find local counsel.
Zambrano’s troubles appeared to pile up as he had previously told the court that he wasn’t receiving file notices. According to Pete’s legal team, the court directed him to contact the help desk for the electronic filing system.
An Oct. 30 filing notes that discussions for a settlement have yet to happen.