by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 9 – Terrance Dixon says he was abused by Joseph Cartagena a/k/a Fat Joe.
But Fat Joe sued Dixon first, for defamation. After that, Dixon's lawyer Tyrone Blackburn filed his suit against Fat Joe.
On August 1 both cases were addressed before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. Inner City Press live tweeted, here.
The upshot is that Judge Rochon declined to stay discovery in Fat Joe v. Dixon, but also declined the request of Fat Joe and Roc Nations that Dixon's case be dismissed and made into a counterclaim in Fat Joe's suit.
Instead, Dixon's case will be consolidated with Fat Joes, with Dixon directed to effectuate service of process before an Initial Pre-Trial Conference in that case in October.
On September 5 Judge Rochon docketed the schedule: "Depositions shall be completed no later than December 1, 2025. The case is to be tried to a jury. Counsel for the parties have conferred and their best estimate of the length of trial is 5 days. Deposition due by 1/20/2026. Fact Discovery due by 12/1/2025. Expert Discovery due by 1/20/2026. Discovery due by 1/20/2026. Case Management Conference set for 2/17/2026 at 10:00 AM before Judge Jennifer L. Rochon. Pretrial Conference set for 2/17/2026 at 10:00 AM."
On September 8 Dixon's counsel Blackburn wrote in asking to amend a filing with a series of misquoted or non existent cases - and on September 10 Judge Rochon declined to accept the amendment, stating "defendants may address any inaccuracies in their previous brief in reply. full filing and endorsement on Patreon here
On January 7 Judge Rochon held a conference on AI and discovery disputes, asked Blackburn if unlike in New Jersey he is continuing - and gave the parties two days to confer, before January 9.
On January 9, Blackburn filed a complaint: "FIRST LETTER addressed to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon from Tyrone Blackburn, Esq. dated 1/9/2026 re: emergency application seeking immediate Court intervention based on the discovery that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is materially based on secret and illegal recordings of confidential attorney-to-attorney settlement discussions, made in violation of Floridas criminal wiretapping statute, Fla. Stat. § 934.03, and subject to Floridas absolute exclusionary rule, Fla. Stat. § 934.06." Filing on Patreon here
Watch this site.
More on Jan 7 on X for Subscribers here and Substack here
The two cases have been consolidated under the first filed case, Cartagena v. Dixon, et al., 1:25-cv-3552 (Rochan)
More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
