Rapper 50 Cent attends the Friars Club Honors Martin Scorsese With Entertainment Icon Award at Cipriani Wall Street on September 21, 2016 in New York City.

Rapper 50 Cent attends the Friars Club Honors Martin Scorsese With Entertainment Icon Award at Cipriani Wall Street on September 21, 2016 in New York City.

*A producer who claims he was tricked into signing over rights to a sample used by 50 Cent has just had his lawsuit against the rapper dismissed.

Brandon Parrot sued 50 (Curtis Jackson) in June, claiming he gave up his rights to a track called “BAMBA” as a result of fraud. Parrot says the sample was used in 50’s 2003 hit “P.I.M.P.,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The lawsuit also included producer Denaun Porter, attorney Zach Katz, UMG Recordings, Interscope, Aftermath Records, Shady Records and EMI Music Publishing.

Parrot and Porter co-produced “BAMBA,” and Parrot claims Porter told him it was a mistake that he wasn’t initially credited as a producer on “P.I.M.P.” and that they failed to get his permission to use the track.

The labels moved to dismiss the suit in September, arguing that the terms of an earlier settlement — which secured Parrot royalties and shared ownership in the track — dictate that he can’t sue.

In an opinion filed Wednesday, U.S. District Judge S. James Otero dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.

It is undisputed that Parrot granted the rights to “BAMBA,” so the key question before the court was whether he was fraudulently induced to do so. Otero found that Parrot’s fraud claim was not only time-barred but also deeply flawed — failing on the justifiable reliance standard that is necessary to prevail.

“[No] reasonable music composer in Parrott’s position could have relied ‘in good faith’ upon a co-producer’s statements that the composer’s music had ‘mistakenly’ been incorporated into millions of infringing tracks without anyone notifying or crediting him,” writes Otero. “Moreover, assuming the truth of Parrott’s FAC, as the Court must at this stage, the only plausible inference is that Parrott failed to conduct any investigation in the truth behind Porter’s statements. Thus, Parrot’s own allegations defeat his claims.”

Further, Otero notes that there are no factual allegations presented to support a fraud claim against the labels. Because Parrot’s fraud claims fail his copyright infringement claims do too, as the rights to “BAMBA” were transferred in the initial settlement and co-producer agreements.

Otero also found that Erica Tucker, Parrot’s business manager who was also listed as a plaintiff, lacks standing to sue and dismissed her as a party.