Universal Music Group (UMG) is actively seeking to extricate itself from a lawsuit filed by Liza Gardner, who asserts she was raped by Sean “Diddy” Combs and singer Aaron Hall in 1990.
The suit, which implicates UMG, MCA and Geffen Records, is currently under scrutiny as UMG challenges its validity. At the heart of the dispute is Gardner’s claim of being sexually assaulted in New York City at the age of 16 by Combs and Hall.
Gardner says she was good friends with members of the group Jodeci, who eventually introduced her to Combs and Hall at an industry event. She claims the pair applied her with liquor during the evening. After the event, they went back to Hall’s apartment, where she was allegedly raped.
“After Combs finished doing his business, Jane Doe laid in bed, shocked and traumatized. As she was in the process of getting dressed, Hall barged into the room, pinned her down and forced Jane Doe to have sex with him,” according to the original complaint.
Gardner alleges that her traumatic experience stems from the encounter with the two figures, both of whom were affiliated with the MCA Records label at the time. The lawsuit accuses UMG Recordings, Inc. of bearing responsibility for the actions of its signed talents, Combs and Hall.
In an attempt to dismiss the charges, UMG’s defense focuses on several points, principally the argument that the allegations are time-barred and the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) doesn’t apply due to Gardner’s age at the time of the offense.
The ASA’s provisions for reviving otherwise expired claims are conditional on the survivor being 18 or older at the time of the alleged assault, a criterion Gardner doesn’t meet.
Additionally, UMG disputes Gardner’s ability to establish a claim for vicarious liability, which is essential for her assault and battery claims against the corporation.
The defense further contends that Gardner’s complaint lacks the necessary allegations of duty and extreme conduct required for her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed.
Further undermining Gardner’s legal action, UMG points to the inapplicability of the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (GMVL) to her case, citing the law’s nonexistence in 1990. Even if it were applicable, UMG argues Gardner fails to substantiate her GMVL claim against the corporation. Lastly, UMG raises procedural issues, asserting improper service of the complaint due to lack of evidence supporting the process server’s affidavit of service and consequently suggesting the court should dismiss the lawsuit.
