Diddy scored a significant legal win in New York after a federal judge dismissed nearly every claim brought against him by Sara Rivers, a former contestant on MTV’s Making the Band 2 and a member of the group Da Band.
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled that 21 of the 22 claims in Rivers’ $60 million lawsuit had no legal standing or were filed too late.
The only claim left standing accuses Diddy of violating the New York City Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act. That claim remains on pause while a federal appeals court weighs whether recent amendments to the statute are valid under state law.
Rivers, who performed with Da Band on the early 2000s reality series, alleged a range of misconduct dating back over two decades. Her lawsuit included accusations of sexual harassment, assault, forced labor and emotional abuse, many of which stemmed from her time on the show.
Rivers’ lawsuit painted a disturbing picture of her time under Diddy’s management. She alleged that he touched her inappropriately during filming, mocked her eating disorder, and forced her to live in shared quarters with male group members despite being married.
She also claimed he threatened violence and made bizarre statements, including allegedly saying he wanted to “eat” someone’s flesh.
The suit also referenced the now-infamous “cheesecake” episode, in which Diddy ordered the group to walk from Manhattan to Brooklyn to retrieve dessert. Rivers said the group was paid just $5,000 per episode and received a one-time $25,000 signing bonus, while Diddy profited from their labor.
Diddy and his legal team denied all allegations. In previous statements, they called the lawsuit “meritless” and maintained that the claims were “completely false.”
The court sided with Diddy and dismissed all claims “with prejudice,” meaning they cannot be refiled. Several claims had already been voluntarily dropped by Rivers before the hearing and the judge marked those as moot.
The remaining claim under the Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act will remain frozen until the appeals court decides whether the law’s recent changes are enforceable.