Nicki Minaj is facing a legal dispute over alleged unpaid bills for custom jewellery, but her attorney is arguing that she bears no responsibility.According to her attorney, the jeweller based in West Hollywood is merely seeking publicity by involving the singer.The rapper has been sued by owner of Roseark jewellery store who claims to have provided her with loaned jewellery, a common practice for celebrities.

0

However, the jeweller alleges that some of the pieces were returned in a damaged condition, which is not in line with standard practice.According to a recently filed lawsuit, obtained by TMZ, Nicki Minaj's stylist, Brett Alan Nelson, entered into a contract with the Roseark jewellery store. The agreement stated that Roseark would lend jewellery to Nicki Minaj for a public appearance.<img

1

src="

alt="Nicki Minaj sued for allegedly damaging borrowed neckless" title="Nicki Minaj sued for allegedly damaging borrowed neckless"/>Getty ImagesThe store claims the contract called for Brett to return the bling within a week and pay for any damages the jewellery might incur under his watch.In the documents, Roseark claims Nicki’s stylist failed to

2

return 66 pieces of jewellery by the agreed-upon deadline, and, when Brett finally forked over the bling, there was noticeable damage to a set of earrings and a leaf ring.<img src="

alt="Roseark" title="Nicki Minaj sued for allegedly damaging borrowed neckless"/>A source close to Nicki tells TMZ everything was returned on time as promised and it was only after

3

items were in the jeweller’s possession for some time that the store complained about a missing stone.The jewellery store says it sent invoices to Brett for the damage, which it says totals $26,239.50 plus interest. The folks at Roseark claim they haven’t gotten paid, despite their repeated attempts to collect.

4

So, Roseark is suing Nicki and her stylist for the money even though it appears Nikki never had any direct dealings with the jeweller.In fact, Nicki Minaj’s attorney, Jordan Siev, tells TMZ “we have not been presented with any evidence that any of the jewellery at issue was damaged by Nicki.

5

This lawsuit appears to be nothing more than an ordinary insurance claim by the jeweller designed to generate publicity for itself and extract a payment to which it is not entitled. We will defend the lawsuit vigorously.”

6