FILE – Music mogul and entrepreneur Sean “Diddy” Combs arrives at the Billboard Music Awards in Las Vegas, May 15, 2022. Combs, was accused in a lawsuit Thursday, Nov. 16, 2023, of subjecting R&B singer Cassie to abuse in a years-long relationship. Cassie, whose legal Casandra Ventura, alleged in the suit filed against the producer and music mogul in New York federal court. Combs’ lawyer denies the allegations. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP, File)
As Sean “Diddy” Combs waits to see where the federal government’s raids of his homes as part of sex trafficking probe leads him legally, the rapper last Friday moved to throw out all of the claims brought against his companies in a lawsuit that accused him of “intentionally drugging,” raping, and recording a woman in 1991.
The motion to dismiss four claims in the New York case that Joi Dickerson-Neal brought under the New York Adult Survivors Act (ASA) just before a November 2023 deadline began by citing the plaintiff’s admittedly “incomplete” memory of the alleged assault, seemingly to try and undermine her claimed certainty about being “intentionally drugged” and recorded while she was a psychology student at Syracuse University more than 30 years ago.
“Although the Complaint admits that Dickerson’s ‘memory is incomplete,’ it nevertheless alleges that Dickerson was ‘intentionally drugged’ at dinner” in Harlem, the New York Supreme Court filing said, emphasizing in italics that this was “over thirty years ago.” The motion submitted by Combs attorney Jonathan Davis described the allegations “as false, offensive, and salacious,” adding that the defendants “vehemently deny” those claims.
The motion did not address an assault and battery claim against Combs for alleged “unlawful, intentional, and offensive touching or application of force to Plaintiff’s person.” Nor did the motion address an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the rapper.
Instead, the motion sought to toss out the last four of the six claims in the case, sex trafficking, revenge porn, and gender-motivated violence against Combs’ companies, namely, Bad Boy Entertainment, Inc. — better known as Bad Boy Records — and Combs Enterprises. Dickerson-Neal’s suit claimed that it was an “‘open secret’ that Combs abused women,” but Bad Boy Entertainment and Combs Enterprises “continued to employ him” anyway.
Joi Dickerson-Neal sued Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment, Inc., and Combs Enterprises, in New York Supreme Court, claiming that she was sexually assaulted and recorded while she was a psychology student at Syracuse University more than 30 years ago.
For the defendant, the reasons for dismissal are simple: the statutes on which these claims were based “did not exist at the time the alleged misconduct occurred” and neither did the “corporate entities” that Dickerson-Neal is seeking to hold liable.
“The four statutes underlying Plaintiff’s claims were enacted years after the 1991 conduct alleged in the Complaint, and they cannot be retroactively applied to that alleged conduct absent clear legislative intent. The New York Legislature did not express any intent or purpose for those statutes to be applied retroactively,” the motion said. “And, generally, the ASA does not affect the fundamental presumption against the retroactive effect of a statute. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action must be dismissed with prejudice.”
Combs’ attorneys added the suit’s claims “fail as a matter of law.”
“The Company Defendants were not in existence at the time of the alleged conduct. Furthermore, even if the Company Defendants existed at that time, no allegations of wrongdoing are pled against them,” the filing continued. “Finally, no theory of vicarious liability or veil-piercing can be pleaded that imputes the alleged sexual assault by the individual defendants onto the Company Defendants.”
Combs asserted “it would be futile” for the court to allow Dickerson-Neal to cure the deficiencies the defense identified in her complaint, so the defendant moved to dismiss those claims with prejudice, so they can’t be filed again.
“The Complaint makes almost no factual accusations about the Company Defendants – and certainly fails to allege any purported sexual assault occurred at their places of business,” the motion concluded. “It is unsurprising because neither Company Defendant existed in 1991 when the alleged incident occurred, and the Complaint does not allege otherwise.”
Read the motion here.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
