As the fallout between Joseline Hernandez and Zeus Network CEO Lemuel Plummer continues to play out in public, media personality Funky Dineva is offering a reality check. Drawing from his own years of experience in the industry, Dineva took to social media to break down the contractual side of the dispute, suggesting that Joseline may have underestimated the legal power of a non compete.
The tension between the “Puerto Rican Princess” and the network head has sparked a massive debate online, but Dineva insists this isn’t about choosing sides. Instead, he points to the fine print that often governs high profile talent.
“Joseline Hernandez didn’t understand what a non-compete was…” Dineva wrote, highlighting what he believes is the root of the friction.
While Joseline has moved toward launching her own platform and maintaining ownership of her content, Dineva warns that timing is everything in the world of television contracts. In his post, he explained that even if a star owns their brand, they are often legally barred from starting a rival venture until a specific window of time has passed.
“There are no sides to take in this. Yes she owns her show and yes she has the right to start her own network, AFTER HER NON COMPETE EXPIRES!!!” Dineva clarified.
To provide context, he shared his own history with networks like Fox Soul and Sister Circle, noting that he was frequently restricted from working on competing talk shows for set periods. He explained that for major talent, these “blackout” periods can last up to two years after they leave a network. According to Dineva, if Joseline moved too early, Zeus has every right to stop her payments.
“If she breaches her contract, which it appears she may have, then Zeus reserves the right to discontinue paying her,” he added.
While the legal battle also involves serious allegations of abuse and misconduct, Dineva was careful to separate the business dispute from the more severe claims. He noted that while the contract issues are straightforward, the “alleged sex trafficking, abuse, etc.” is a “different conversation” entirely. As the case develops, it remains to be seen if the courts will agree with Dineva’s assessment of the contract breach.
