Mastodon Ask Court to Throw Out Parts of Brent Hinds Estate Lawsuit

Mastodon filed a 20-page memorandum in court on Monday asking a judge to dismiss large portions of the lawsuit brought by the estate of the band's late guitarist, Brent Hinds. The filing, obtained by Rolling Stone, argues that even if every allegation in the estate's complaint were true, the legal theories behind them collapse.

"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.

The suit was filed in September by Billy Hinds, Brent Hinds' father, on behalf of the estate. Much of Mastodon's response picks apart the phrasing of the original complaint rather than disputing events outright. "These distinctions matter," the filing states.

What does Mastodon actually dispute?

The band's lawyers raise four main arguments, each targeting a specific claim in the estate's complaint.

• No money owed for the album cover. The band disputes that it owes the estate anything for using Brent Hinds' likeness on the cover of its recently released album, Marrow Deep.
• Personal liability. The lawyers argue the individual members of Mastodon cannot be held personally liable because Mastodon is a limited liability company.
• No binding buyout. Any buyout offer made to Hinds before his death by one of the band's subsidiary companies did not, they argue, create a binding obligation to complete it. The estate, they add, cannot set its own price: "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."
• No fiduciary breach. The band contests the estate's allegations of "breach of fiduciary duty," claiming the estate failed to demonstrate a fiduciary relationship between the band and the use of Hinds' image in the artwork.

The conversion claim and the $80,000 check

The estate's original complaint, filed in September, alleged that Hinds never legally formalized his departure from the band before he died in August 2025. The band and Hinds had "mutually parted ways" in March 2025, but the estate argues no formal separation was completed.

At the center of the dispute is a check. The estate's filing claimed the band gave it a check for $80,000, presented as representing Hinds' share in the band and constituting a buyout. The estate refused to cash it. Mastodon's memorandum does not address the check's adequacy directly; instead, its lawyers attack the mechanics of the claim.

On "conversion" — the legal term for theft — the band contests allegations that it stole Hinds' 25 percent ownership interest in the group. "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," the filing says.

The argument is narrow: no physical or documentary seizure, no theft under Georgia law's framing. What the filing does not address is whether the estate's underlying 25 percent stake retains value the band must eventually account for. That question remains open.

The likeness question the court may have to settle

Mastodon's lawyers also target the wording of the estate's claims over Hinds' image, arguing the estate should spell out how it would govern use of his likeness going forward. "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 paperwork says.

The phrasing signals a broader fight over who controls a dead musician's commercial image when the estate and the former band disagree. The band has already released Marrow Deep with Hinds' likeness on its cover; the estate wants a say in any future use. A ruling on this motion could clarify how far an estate's control extends after a member's death.

A representative for Mastodon declined to comment. Billy Hinds' lawyer did not immediately reply to Rolling Stone's request for comment.

What happens next

When the band was first sued, it issued a statement framing the dispute as a private matter forced into the open. "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."

The decision now rests with the judge. If the motion to dismiss succeeds in part, the estate's case narrows to whichever claims survive — likely refiled or amended with sharper language. If it fails in full, the case moves toward discovery, where the buyout negotiations, the subsidiary's offer and the circumstances of the $80,000 check would be examined in detail. Either way, the March 2025 departure, the August 2025 death and the album cover already bearing Hinds' face ensure the underlying questions about his 25 percent stake and his likeness stay in litigation for months to come.