The apartment firm that’s being accused by Young Thug of mishandling his luggage has pushed back on the lawsuit that was filed against the company and claimed it was the rapper’s negligence that led to the bag getting lost.
Young Thug’s lost Louis Vuitton bag is said to have contained $40,000 in cash, a diamond chain worth $37,000, a diamond watch worth $57,000, and a hard drive with 200 unreleased songs that had an estimated value of around $1 million.
According to court filings obtained by Rolling Stone, JLB Peachtree Management is arguing that Thug should have kept a closer eye on his bag and that his “negligence and failure to exercise ordinary care” led to the bag allegedly being stolen from the lobby of the apartment. While Peachtree Management does admit that one of its staffers located the bag after it was reported to be left next to the rapper’s car in the apartment’s parking garage, they do not assume any responsibility in protecting it.
Thug’s lawyer, Charles Hoffecker, offered a direct response to these claims, telling Rolling Stone that if the firm recognized that it was Thug’s bag in the first place, then they have kept it safe since they know which resident it belonged to.
“The suggestion my client’s negligence — if any — outweighs the defendants’ ignores the simple facts the defendants’ employees acted to secure the property, knew whose property it was, committed to keep the property safe in a secure location, communicated to my client they would keep the property secure, and then released the property to an unknown person,” Hoffecker said. “Now that the defendants have filed their answer, we look forward to pursuing Young Thug’s rights through the litigation process.”
This lawsuit was originally filed about a month ago. According to Gwinnett County Superior Court filings, it argued that once the apartment complex found the bag and released it to someone other than its owner, they became responsible for its whereabouts.
“Defendants voluntarily took possession of plaintiff’s property, notified plaintiff of their possession of his property, and undertook additional efforts to secure it and only return it to a proper party,” the court documents read. “When defendants released the property to an unknown individual other than plaintiff or plaintiff’s authorized representative, defendants breached a duty of care to plaintiff which had been created by their actions.”