A Washington, D.C., landlord has filed a $2.8 million breach of contract lawsuit in opposition to Tyra Banks and her ice cream enterprise, Smize & Dream.

In court docket paperwork obtained by Leisure Weekly, Christopher Powell claims that he entered right into a 10-year business lease in April 2024 with Banks, her nonprofit College of SMiZE, and accomplice Louis Martin that might see her open up an ice cream store in his D.C. constructing. Nonetheless, he claims that Banks instantly terminated the lease that summer season and is now refusing to pay hire.

Legal professionals for Powell, Banks, and Martin didn’t instantly reply to EW’s request for remark.

In his Oct. 9 criticism, Powell claimed that he first met with defendants in March 2024 and agreed to lease them the constructing “as-is” a month later after studying Banks was constructing the store in honor of her mother, Carolyn London.

“She mentioned Smize & Dream wouldn’t solely be an ice cream store, but in addition an initiative to supply underserved youth in Washington with training in science, gross sales, and hospitality,” the submitting learn. “Ms. Banks instructed Mr. Powell that the D.C. location in his constructing could be the flagship location of what Ms. Banks envisioned as a worldwide chain serving communities world wide.”

'ANTM' winner Adrianne Curry says show makeover left her 'partially bald' 22 years later 'ANTM' winner Adrianne Curry reveals why she didn't complain about 'oozing wound' makeover

After collaborating with the defendants on the challenge, Powell claimed that he noticed Banks showcasing their designs for a Smize & Dream store opening in Sydney, Australia, as an alternative. Banks and Martin then “abruptly deserted the premises in June 2024” and refused to pay hire, in line with the go well with.

The criticism famous that Powell had “no indication that Ms. Banks and Mr. Martin would desert the enterprise,” particularly given they’d “repeatedly conveyed their dedication to opening Smize & Dream in his constructing.”

Nonetheless, Powell alleged within the docs that “a number of weeks after they deserted his constructing,” Banks threw a Smize & Dream pop-up store simply miles away from his property. The lawsuit added, “Whereas Mr. Powell scrambled to handle the authorized and monetary fallout from their abandonment, Ms. Banks and Mr. Martin had already launched an alternate Smize and Dream enterprise elsewhere whereas ignoring their authorized obligations.”

Whereas he tried to “attain an amicable decision” with the defendants at first, Powell claimed within the criticism that he acquired a letter from Martin and Banks that “lodged quite a few false accusations in opposition to Mr. Powell, his constructing, and the lease” that September.

“They made claims of deficiency within the property which might be each unfaithful and irrelevant, and threatened to publicize their lies if Mr. Powell filed a lawsuit in opposition to them,” it learn. “Ms. Banks and Mr. Martin additionally said that even when Mr. Powell filed a lawsuit and secured a ruling in opposition to them, they might not pay any judgment. As an alternative, they might keep away from legal responsibility by shifting blame onto their firm that they declare has no property.”

The lawsuit notes that Martin and Banks “in the end opened Smize & Dream in Australia,” the place they’ve since relocated. It provides, “Though Mr. Powell made repeated good religion efforts to resolve this matter amicably, he’s now left with deep monetary loss and no selection however to file go well with.”

Beneath the phrases of their lease, that are included within the criticism, Powell is asking for “at least $2,831,331 along with late charges, accrued curiosity, Extra Hire, attorneys’ charges, and reletting bills” in relation to the case.

However the authorized saga isn’t over fairly but. A docket for the case, obtained by EW, reveals Banks and Martin's lawyer, Steven Willner, filed a movement to dismiss the go well with “for lack of material jurisdiction and for failure to state a declare” on Nov. 11.

Powell and his lawyer, Arziki Adamu, had been granted an extension to file their response from decide Amy Berman Jackson on Nov. 21. The plaintiff “should file its response to defendants’ movement to dismiss by Dec. 16” for the case to proceed.

Shut