Hip-Hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is presently battling to dismiss a disturbing lawsuit in opposition to him and his enterprises following extreme allegations of sexual misconduct courting again to 2003.
The authorized problem, lodged by the obscure plaintiff recognized solely as Jane Doe, accuses Diddy, Dangerous Boy worker Harve Pierre and an unnamed affiliate of intercourse trafficking and gang-raping her when she was 17 years previous at his Manhattan recording studio Daddy’s Home.
In her lawsuit filed on December 6, 2023, Doe alleges that in her traumatic encounter, she was coerced into oral intercourse by Diddy’s longtime producing associate, Harve Pierre, who additionally supposedly smoked crack through the incident.
The criticism particulars how Pierre allegedly transported her from Detroit to New York on a personal jet and supplied her with medication and alcohol till she was inebriated and unable to consent.
The submitting consists of pictures purportedly from the evening in query, one depicting Doe seated on Combs’ lap, bolstering her claims.
Diddy’s authorized group, spearheaded by legal professional Jonathan Davis, has put forth a number of arguments for dismissing the accusations, primarily emphasizing that the lawsuit is time-barred.
The alleged incidents occurred in 2003, however the authorized motion was not initiated till 2023, considerably past the statute of limitations.
Davis highlighted in court docket paperwork that any assertion to revive the declare beneath the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Safety Legislation (VGM) ought to be disregarded because it conflicts with the provisions of the Baby Victims Act (CVA) from 2019.
In accordance with Diddy’s protection, the deadline to enact claims beneath this act expired in August 2021, making Doe’s accusations procedurally invalid.
Furthermore, Diddy’s illustration contended that the purported behaviors of his colleagues shouldn’t be attributed to him or his firms, asserting that such acts fall exterior the realm of employment tasks.
Davis additional criticized the lawsuit’s narrative method.
“On the prime of Plaintiff’s pleading is a bolded, legally irrelevant ‘set off warning’ calculated to focus consideration on its salacious and wicked allegations. This stunt is meant to prominently showcase a baseless and time-barred declare,” Davis defined.
On his half, Harve Pierre has refuted all the costs in opposition to him, describing them as wholly fabricated and motivated by monetary pursuits.
Pierre declared, “This can be a story of fiction. I’ve by no means participated in, witnessed, nor heard of something like this, ever. These disgusting allegations are false and a determined try for monetary acquire.”
Supply hyperlink