Two talent managers who helped launch the career of Ludacris are suing Grammy winner Muni Long, saying she terminated their services earlier this year without paying nearly $500,000 in commissions and personal reimbursement expenses owed.
Chaka Zulu and Jeff Dixon, as well as their company, Ebony Son Entertainment Inc., brought the suit Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court against the 36-year-old singer-songwriter, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, deceit and conversion.
The plaintiffs seek $468,600 in allegedly unpaid commissions, plus about $154,000 in reimbursement of personal expenses. They also seek punitive damages and an accounting.
A representative for Long, whose real name is Priscilla Renea Hamilton, could not be immediately reached for comment. Zulu and Dixon helped propel Ludacris to fame in 1998 with the establishment of the Disturbing tha Peace label.
Long sought the services of Zulu and Dixon through a mutual connection to set up a meeting in 2023, a crucial moment in her career after having just won her first Grammy, the suit states. Long agreed that year to a 20% commission and the singer won her second Grammy the next year for “Made for Me,” the suit further states.
However, Zulu and Dixon soon found out that Long engaged in frequent emotional outbursts disturbing to anyone around her, which threatened her performances, contracts and even her career, the suit states. The plaintiffs knew that if not corrected the problem, at worst, could make her a “pariah” and “uninsurable,” which would be a “career killer,” the suit contends.
“They did everything within their power to smooth over the effects on those exposed to the chaos she caused,” according to the complaint.
Long’s outward emotional state deteriorated further in the summer of 2024 when she and her husband of 10 years divorced, revealing what Zulu and Dixon now believe is the singer’s true character, according to the suit, which further states that the plaintiffs actually were relieved when Long terminated their services early this year.
“Plaintiffs never begrudge clients their right to have the manager of their choice,” the suit states. “Plaintiffs will not tolerate, however, former clients who both break their word and deny it was ever given.”