Sean “Diddy” Combs’ high-powered lawyers are taking another shot at getting a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Jane Doe, who claimed she was gang raped by the mogul and his pals.
Jane Doe made explosive allegations claiming a crack-smoking Harve Pierre forced her to give him oral sex in a bathroom in Detroit before she boarded a private jet bound for Diddy’s studio Daddy’s House, where she was raped again by the Bad Boy boss, Harve Pierre, and another unidentified man.
On February 20, the mogul filed court documents denying the claims while labeling the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act unconstitutional, thus making the lawsuit a violation of his constitutional rights.
In a supplemental memorandum of law filed on behalf of Sean Combs on February 23, Daddy’s House Recordings, Inc., and Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc. once again argued for the dismissal of the civil action brought against them by Jane Doe.
According to the memorandum, the lawsuit, which alleges a single cause of action under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence (VGM) Protection Law, has caused irreparable harm to the defendants’ reputations.
“The lawsuit…has resulted in them becoming victims of the ‘cancel culture’ frenzy in the courts – well before any evidence has been presented, and on the basis of rank, uncorroborated allegations,” Diddy’s lawyer Jonathan Davis groused.
In his second attempt, Diddy wants to dismiss the case because the plaintiff’s claim is time-barred thanks to a separate ruling by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, which was made one day after Diddy’s initial response.
Diddy’s lawyer maintains that the claim-revival provision of the VGM is preempted by the adoption of the Child Victims Act (CVA) and the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) by the New York State Legislature.
These acts revived claims related to sexual offenses committed against individuals under the age of 18 and individuals aged 18 or older, respectively. The lookback window for both pieces of legislation has closed.
Under Judge Kaplan’s reasoning, Jane Doe’s claim, brought under the VGM’s claim-revival provision, is preempted by the CVA and ASA and therefore, must be dismissed with prejudice.
The defendants argue that the claim-revival provision of the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law cannot be relied upon by the plaintiff because it is inconsistent with the state statutes.
Diddy’s lawyer adamantly denies the allegations made by Jane Doe and argues that the claim is time-barred because the alleged misconduct occurred in 2003 and the statute of limitations expired in 2010.
The defendants argue that this decision provides another basis for dismissing the case and that the preemption ground applied by Judge Kaplan is interrelated with their retroactivity argument and should be considered in deciding the motion to dismiss.
Diddy and his lawyers want the court to grant an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
