Snoop Dogg Launches Three-Pronged Defense To Dismiss Jane Doe’s Sexual Assault Claim

Snoop Dogg

Snoop Dogg’s lawyers say a sexual assault lawsuit against him should be dismissed in part because of the statute of limitations.

Snoop Dogg’s legal team claims the statute of limitations lapsed in a Jane Doe’s sexual assault lawsuit against him.

According to court documents obtained by AllHipHop, Snoop Dogg wants the lawsuit dismissed in part because the alleged victim didn’t pursue legal action quickly enough.

Jane Doe accused him and Bishop Don “Magic” Juan of sexual assault in a lawsuit filed earlier this year, but the alleged incident took place in 2013.

The woman says she woke up to former pimp Bishop Don “Magic” Juan putting his “flaccid” penis into her shut mouth. Then, she voluntarily went to a studio where Snoop Dogg was present in hopes of becoming a “weather girl.”

Jane Doe accused Snoop Dogg of “enticing” her to perform oral sex on him in a bathroom. The woman claims she obliged because she was scared for her life.

Afterward, the “mortified, embarrassed, humiliated, terrified, and panicked,” woman wandered around the studio before taking a picture with Snoop. The woman waited almost nine years to file the lawsuit, doing so four days before Snoop Dogg’s highly publicized Super Bowl Halftime performance.

“Plaintiff was required to bring her state law claims no later than one or two years (depending on the claim) after the alleged conduct,” the rapper’s attorneys argue. “Because she waited nearly nine years to bring her claims, they are time-barred. The Court should therefore dismiss the state law claims as untimely or, in the alternative, decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.”

Snoop Dogg’s lawyers contend California’s new statute of limitations cannot apply retroactively to something that allegedly happened in 2013. They believe their client is in the clear since Jane Doe failed to file a lawsuit by May 2015.

“Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16, which was added in 2018 and made effective January 1, 2019, the statute of limitations for a sexual assault claim filed after January 1, 2019 is ten years,” Snoop Dogg’s attorneys note. “Under California law, however, if a claim has already lapsed under an existing statute of limitations, the claim is not revived by the new statute of limitations absent an express statement from the California Legislature.”

The lawyers continue, “Here, Plaintiff alleges the sexual assault and sexual battery took place in May 2013. At the time, there was a two-year statute of limitations for assault and battery pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 335.1. Because Plaintiff filed her complaint nearly nine years after the alleged conduct, her sexual assault and sexual battery claims lapsed in May 2015 under the previously applicable Section 335.1. Section 340.16 does not revive her claims.”

Snoop Dogg, whose real name is Calvin Broadus, also insists Jane Doe made an “implausible and false” claim accusing him of violating the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. His legal team maintains the sex trafficking allegations stretch the act “beyond its breaking point.”

Representatives for Snoop Dogg reached out to AllHipHop to emphasize three additional arguments, which they say “demonstrate the lack of credibility of the plaintiff and her story.”

– The plaintiff has failed to allege anything that meets the federal definition of sex trafficking.

– The plaintiff has named Mr. Broadus’s companies as defendants in part of this alleged scheme, including repeated claims that they “assaulted” and tried to “prostitute” her. However, none of these companies existed at the time of the alleged incident. You cannot sue a person or entity for something that happened before they existed. The lack of their existence at the time of the alleged incident is readily discoverable in the public domain. Nonetheless, plaintiff and her counsel continue to make these false allegations, which only undermine their own credibility.

– The plaintiff accuses Mr. Broadus of enticement and a quid pro quo. However, in all three of her complaints (December 2021 DFEH complaint, February 2022 federal complaint, and March 2022 first amended complaint), the plaintiff fails to show that Mr. Broadus offered any enticement for quid pro quo. All three of her complaints state that Mr. Broadus only allegedly said “put it in your mouth” during the alleged incident.

The alleged victim says Snoop Dogg’s been harassing her since she pursued legal action against him.

He denies all of her allegations and calls her lawsuit a “shakedown.”