Lindsay Lohan Chewed to Pieces in Pitbull Lawsuit

No, Lindsay Lohan — you can't have a bunch of money just because somebody briefly mentioned you in a song

Last Updated: February 21, 2013 @ 7:15 PM

As it turns out, Lindsay Lohan doesn't have much luck as a plaintiff in legal proceedings either.

Getty Images

Troubled "Liz & Dick" actress Lohan, who has experienced more than her share of legal woes in recent years, was shot down Thursday in her lawsuit against Pitbull, Ne-Yo and Afrojack over the 2011 song "Give Me Everything."

Also read: Lindsay Lohan's Face: An Evolution in 60 Seconds

Lohan had sued the trio, along with others, under New York Civil Rights Law, claiming that the song made "disparaging and defamatory statements" about Lohan, violated her privacy, and used her name for advertising purposes without authorization.

Oh, and she also claimed that the tune caused her "tremendous emotional distress."

Specifically, Lohan took issue with the lyrics, "So, I'm tiptoein', to keep flowin'/I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan."

Also read: Lindsay Lohan 'Exhaustion' Sparks Paramedic Response

However, Lohan's claims went down in flames in U.S. District Court in New York on Thursday, as Judge Denis R. Hurley granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and tossed out Lohan's complaint.

In his ruling, Hurley found that the song, as a protected work of art under the First Amendment, doesn't violate the New York Civil Rights Law.

The judge also dismissed Lohan's claim that the songwriters used her name for advertising or purposes or trade.

Also read: Watch Lindsay Lohan Get Outacted by a Porn Star in 'The Canyons' (Video)

"Even if the Court were to conclude that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that her name was used in the Song for purposes of advertising or trade, the isolated nature of the use of her name would, in and of itself, prove fatal to her New York Civil Rights Law claim," Hurley found.

As for the claim of emotional distress? Yeah, that didn't fly either, with Hurley ruling, "even if the defendants used plaintiff's name in one line of the Song without her consent, such conduct is insufficient to meet the threshold for extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress."

On the plus side for Lohan, the judge decided not to impose sanctions on the actress, as the defendants had requested.

In her complaint, Lohan asked for a permanent injunction preventing any further distribution of the song, plus an injunction ordering the defendants to surrender all existing copies of the song to Lohan.

Naturally, she was also asking for an accounting of the profits that the song had generated for the defendants to date, and "compensatory damages in an amount to be determined in the Court."

Looks like she's the one who hit a bum note, as far as the justice system is concerned.

Pamela Chelin contributed to this report.