Diddy Gets Strategic In Move To Dismiss Sexual Assault Accusations From 1991

Diddy is is making strategic moves to dismiss Joi Dickerson-Neal’sgal lawsuit against him and his companies.

Dickerson-Neal filed legal action against Diddy, contending he drugged and sexually assaulted her in 1991 while she was a student at Syracuse University.

She alleges the incident happened after Diddy took her to dinner and then to a recording studio, where he supposedly drugged her to the point where she could not stand or walk on her own. She claims that Diddy then sexually assaulted her.

According to Dickerson-Neal, Diddy also recorded the assault without her consent and later displayed the video to others, an action she characterized as “revenge p###.”

The lawsuit further details that Dickerson-Neal and Diddy had mutual friends and acquaintances, some of whom were allegedly shown the disturbing video.

The traumatic experience, she states, led her to withdraw from college and abandon her aspirations in the music industry.

Diddy’s attorneys are firing back and emphatically rejecting the applicability of the statutes under which the claims were made, mainly because they were enacted after the alleged misconduct in 1991.

The Adult Survivor’s Act (ASA) allows some older legal claims to be reopened even after the time limit to file them has expired.

However, the ASA does not allow a plaintiff to bring back claims under laws not in place when the alleged misconduct happened.

The laws Dickerson-Neal is trying to use were created years after the alleged incidents in 1991. These laws cannot be applied to past actions unless the lawmakers clearly indicate that they intended for them to apply retroactively.

His lawyers insist that New York’s legislative framework does not support retroactive applications of such statutes.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by LOVE (@diddy)

Diddy’s attorneys have also moved to dismiss claims against his companies, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and Combs Enterprises, LLC.

His lawyers state neither company existed at the time of the alleged misconduct in 1991. ​ Diddy founded Bad Boy Entertainment in 1992, and Combs Enterprises was formed in 2004. ​

Since no legal theory allows holding an entity accountable for actions that pre-date its existence, the claims against his businesses should be dismissed. ​

Furthermore, Diddy’s lawyers say that even if the business had existed at the time of the alleged misconduct, there are no allegations of direct misconduct by them. ​

The complaint does not allege that any misconduct occurred at the company defendants’ places of business, and there are no specific allegations of any particular act they committed. ​

Diddy’s lawyer wants to bar Dickerson-Neal from filing an amended complaint against Bad Boy and Combs Enterprises.

Even if Dickerson-Neal sought to amend the complaint, the fact that the claims are untimely and cannot be sustained under the applicable statutes would remain the same. ​