Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Diddy Fires Back at Jane Doe Lawsuit: 'Decades-Old Tale'

Starting point is 00:00:00 Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Sean Diddy Combs asking a judge to throw out another lawsuit filed against him, this one filed by a woman who wants to remain anonymous. I lay out three reasons Combs says this suit shouldn't stand. Thanks for joining me for Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Sean Combs has already asked a judge to not allow the plaintiff

Starting point is 00:00:31 in this lawsuit to be anonymous. We first told you about this lawsuit last December, right after Jane Doe filed it. The plaintiff, as I mentioned, was only identified as Jane Doe. She claimed that Combs and two other men sexually assaulted her back in 2003 when she was just a teenager. The woman said she was 17 at the time and in the 11th grade living in Detroit. Her lawsuit says she now lives in Canada. The suit included the same trigger warning as other lawsuits filed against Combs and the attorney representing Jane Doe also represented Cassie Ventura, Combs' longtime girlfriend who had sued him a month earlier.

Starting point is 00:01:11 Combs settled that lawsuit the next day, wishing Cassie love while admitting no wrongdoing. Jane Doe included photos in her lawsuit that showed her with Sean Combs in a recording studio sitting on his lap. She's also seen posing next to two large letters on a wall. They are P and D. The woman, who would now be about 38 years old, claimed in her suit that she encountered Bad Boy Records president Harvey Pierre at a bar in Detroit with friends. The woman said Pierre took her into a bathroom in Detroit and smoked crack and forced her to perform oral sex on him. Then she said they boarded a private jet bound for New York City, where she was going to meet Sean Combs, whom she claims to have spoken to by phone already via Pierre.

Starting point is 00:01:57 Once they arrived at the recording studio in New York, Jane Doe said that Combs asked her to pose for this photo. Then after that, she claims Combs, Pierre, and a third man gave her alcohol and drugs. Jane Doe claimed Combs eventually took her into a bathroom alone and removed her skirt and sexually assaulted her from behind. Jane Doe's lawsuit claims she was so intoxicated that there was no way she could have consented to sex that night, but that Combs, a third assailant, and Pierre all sexually assaulted her in the bathroom, one after the other. Pierre, for his part, denied this allegation along with the smoking of the crack back in

Starting point is 00:02:37 December in a statement obtained by TMZ. This is a law and crime legal alert. Google Incognito tracked users browsing data without their knowledge. Mass Tort Alliance, one of our legal sponsors, is helping users file for compensation because Google misled users about the privacy of its Incognito browser. If you've used Google Incognito anytime since 2016, you can start your claim

Starting point is 00:03:01 by answering less than 10 questions. Just log on to incognitoclaims.com slash crimefix. The woman claimed she was taken back to the airport after this sexual assault and flown back to Detroit on the private jet. Jane Doe's suit said the assault caused her emotional distress for years. But seeing Cassie Ventura file a lawsuit against Combs and another woman filed one against Pierre gave her the courage to come forward and file her lawsuit. Now Combs has filed a motion to dismiss, saying the suit should not be allowed to move forward. His motion begins with a preliminary statement. It says,

Starting point is 00:03:37 quote, this is plaintiff's second attempt to state an entirely false and hideous claim against the Combs defendants under New York City's victims of gender-motivated violence protection. Combs even points out the trigger warning in Jane Doe's original suit. He says, a bolded, legally irrelevant trigger warning calculated to focus attention on its salacious and depraved allegations. This stunt is intended to prominently showcase a baseless and time-barred claim, which was designed to cause the Combs defendants unwanted publicity, embarrassment, and financial costs, so plaintiff could extract an undeserved financial recovery from them. Combs goes on to call Jane Doe's claims a, quote, decades-old tale that has caused incalculable damage to the reputations and business standings of the Combs defendants even before any evidence has been presented. Combs' attorneys continue,

Starting point is 00:04:31 plaintiff cannot allege what day or time of year the alleged incident occurred, yet purports to miraculously recall the most purient details with specificity. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed now with prejudice to protect the Combs defendants from further reputational injury and before more party and judicial resources are squandered. Then Combs gets into the more complex legal arguments. First, Combs argues that Jane Doe's claim is time-barred because she cited the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, and reviving her claim under that law, he says, would have been preempted by two others. Those are the Adult Survivors Act

Starting point is 00:05:11 and the Child Victims Act. The Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Law was enacted in the year 2000 by New York City's City Council. According to Combs, that law carries a seven-year statute of limitations. So according to Combs, her claim would have expired in 2010, since Jane Doe claims the assault took place in 2003. Combs further argues that under the Child Victims Act, the last day Jane Doe could have filed her lawsuit would have been in August of 2021, more than two years after she filed her lawsuit. Combs also claims the victims of gender-motivated violence protection law cannot be applied retroactively to the corporate defendants named in the suit. Those are Daddy's House Recordings and Bad Boy Entertainment.

Starting point is 00:05:56 Combs also says the corporate defendants, Daddy's House and Bad Boy, can't be blamed for the alleged misconduct of individuals. Combs' lawyers write, the corporate defendants have no liability under the original version of VGM because they are not, quote, individuals under the plain meaning of that term. Jane Doe amended her lawsuit back on March 29th, but Combs claims that amended complaint doesn't allege any conduct or act by the corporations in which the victims of gender-motivated violence protection law would apply. This formal motion to dismiss follows Combs' statement in December of 2023 about the allegations made in this particular lawsuit.

Starting point is 00:06:38 At the time, Combs tweeted, enough is enough. For the last couple of weeks, I have sat silently and watched people try to assassinate my character, destroy my reputation and my legacy. Sickening allegations have been made against me by individuals looking for a quick payday. Let me be absolutely clear. I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family, and for the truth. Now, at the time that Jane Doe filed her lawsuit, we at Crime Fix posed the question, will these allegations prompt a criminal investigation by the NYPD or the feds since transporting a minor over state lines for sex is a crime? Since that time, the Department of Homeland Security has raided two of Combs' homes,

Starting point is 00:07:23 one in California and another in Florida. Combs is under criminal investigation by the feds, but everything's been really quiet on that front since those raids. We know that the attorney for Cassie Ventura and Jane Doe say they support law enforcement. Douglas Wigder wrote, we will always support law enforcement when it seeks to prosecute those that have violated the law. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a process that will hold Mr. Combs accountable for his depraved conduct. Combs has denied the allegations that he trafficked or sexually assaulted anyone. This is the second motion to dismiss Combs has filed in a matter of weeks. A little more than two weeks ago, Combs filed a partial motion to dismiss against a woman named Joy Dickerson Neal, who claims that Combs sexually assaulted her in 1991 while they were out on a date.

Starting point is 00:08:13 She said she had appeared in a music video with Combs before he founded Bad Boy Records. Here's what litigator Robin Nunn told me about that motion to dismiss. I want to talk with you, Robin, about this case. How difficult is it to bring a civil case when the allegation is this old? This happened in 1991, according to Joy Dickerson-Neal. That is more than 30 years ago. Yeah, thanks for having me. I think that this is an extremely difficult case, besides the fact that it's so personal and involves such a, you know, a sensitive act and crime. But just the sheer duration and time that has gone on since this happened makes it really hard to bring in evidence and witnesses and materials that would corroborate this story just based on that it's been over 30

Starting point is 00:09:07 years since this act took place. Joy Dickerson-Neal claims that there were people who saw the sex tape that Sean Combs made or this recording, this video that he recorded of the sexual assault back in 1991. I think back and I think that had to have been like a VHS, a camcorder if that indeed happened. Sean Combs is saying it didn't happen. And she's claiming there is somebody who told her that he saw it. Would that make her case any easier or is it difficult because it's just so old? I think that any corroborating evidence helps her case. You don't want these cases to rely exclusively on he said, she said information, which is often the case in the sexual assault and rape crimes. If there is someone else who saw this or can testify to

Starting point is 00:10:09 having a conversation and hearing about it, it's always better for the case if there is some corroboration of her memory and her recollections of what exactly transpired. Sean Combs is firing back at this, of course. He's denying that this sexual assault happened. I mean, we know they actually obviously knew each other. There's a music video that they are featured in together from 1991. I mean, decades and decades ago. So they did cross paths at some point in time.

Starting point is 00:10:41 We know that from this music video. But he is saying, look, this should be tossed out not only because it's not true, but she's citing laws that didn't even exist back then. And this is not about the Adult Survivors Act that opened up the year-long window to file civil claims. He's talking about she's citing the revenge porn law. She's also citing the New York services for victims of human trafficking law and the New York City victims of gender motivated violence protection law. These are all laws or acts or what have you that were implemented years and years and years after this alleged assault occurred. So they're saying the Adult Survivors Act doesn't make those laws, doesn't backdate them to 1991. Would you agree with Sean Combs' argument on that front, or do you think she has a point there? I understand Sean Combs' argument in that it wasn't perhaps even thought of as a crime at that time.

Starting point is 00:11:50 I'm not sure that I'm convinced by that, however. Obviously, we all know, especially as women, that laws have evolved. You and I probably couldn't vote at one point in time. I could have been a slave at another point in time. I think that we are very happy that things are where they are right now and that it's 2024. And if this is something that is indeed a crime now,

Starting point is 00:12:16 if the statute has been written such that it applies retroactively back to 1991, then I think that it does apply to Mr. Combs in this situation. Now, if he is indeed correct in that it's one of those that becomes effective in 2030 or 2025, then he has managed to escape on sort of a technicality. However, I don't think that a criminal law such as this would have an effective date that is not all the way back to when this would have happened. I doubt that, but I do understand his argument that the law didn't exist at the time that the crime supposedly occurred. So back to Jane Doe's lawsuit. Sean Combs has filed a motion to dismiss, and the judge has already determined that Jane Doe cannot proceed anonymously if the suit survives a motion to dismiss. Jane Doe's attorneys will respond to this motion, and when they do, we will let you know what they say. And that's it for this episode

Starting point is 00:13:22 of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.

Pet Camera - EBO Air 2

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Diddy Fires Back at Jane Doe Lawsuit: 'Decades-Old Tale'

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.

Your Ad Here

Pet Camera - EBO Air 2

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Diddy Fires Back at Jane Doe Lawsuit: 'Decades-Old Tale'

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.