The members of Mastodon filed paperwork on Monday asking a judge to dismiss parts of a lawsuit that Billy Hinds — the father of the band’s late former guitarist, Brent Hinds — filed on behalf of the estate of Brent Hinds against them. Much of the 20-page filing picks apart the phrasing of the original complaint. “These distinctions matter,” it says in the filing.
In the memorandum, obtained by Rolling Stone, they dispute that they owe the guitarist’s estate any money from using Hinds’ likeness on the cover art for their recently released album, Marrow Deep, and take issue with the “buyout process” related to divesting Hinds of Mastodon’s business interests. “Even assuming the truth of the Estate’s allegations, large swaths of the Complaint’s legal theories fail to state a claim and should be dismissed,” the band’s lawyers write in the paperwork.
Mastodon’s lawyers claim that the individual members of the band should not be held personally liable in the suit since Mastodon is a limited liability company. They claim that any offer of a buyout from one of the band’s subsidiary companies to Hinds before his death did not constitute a binding obligation for them to go through with it. Moreover, they claim that Hinds’ estate can’t set its own prices for such a buyout: “The Complaint cannot allege an agreed purchase price — it does not even allege that Hinds offered a purchase price when he requested to be bought out,” Mastodon’s filing says.
In a section contesting the Hinds estate’s allegations of “breach of fiduciary duty” they stand by the decision to use his image on their album cover. They claim that the estate failed to prove a fiduciary relationship between the band and the use of the image in the artwork. And in another section addressing “conversion” (theft), they contest allegations that they stole Hinds’ 25 percent ownership interest in the band. “While the Estate alleges that [Mastodon] purported to redeem those interests and refused to recognize its rights, there is no allegation that [Mastodon] seized, transferred, or withheld any stock certificates or other documents embodying Hinds’s interests,” according to the filing.
They also nitpick the wording related to the use of Hinds’ image saying that the estate should explain how it would govern the use of his likeness in the future. “To the extent it seeks to prohibit future uses, it seeks to direct [Mastodon’s] future conduct rather than obtain guidance concerning its own,” the band’s paperwork says.
A rep for Mastodon had no comment. Billy Hinds’ lawyer did not immediately reply to Rolling Stone’s request for comment.
The Hinds estate filed its complaint in September. The filing alleged that Hinds had not legally formalized his dismissal from Mastodon (they “mutually parted ways” in March 2025) by the time he died in August 2025. It claimed the band gave the estate a check for $80,000 to represent Hinds’ share in the band and would constitute a buyout. The estate refused to cash the check. “Sadly, a private business dispute with the estate of our dear departed friend Brent Hinds was made public,” the band said at the time. “We strongly deny allegations of ill intent on our part and intend to vigorously defend what we believe is a meritless lawsuit.”
Leave a Reply