Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy Gets Major Win in Bombshell Sex Abuse Lawsuit

Episode Date: March 26, 2025

Sean “Diddy” Combs secured a win in the lawsuit filed against him by music producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones. His legal team had called for the suit to be dismissed, saying Jones hadn��t laid out allegations correctly. The judge just released his order, which throws out part of Jones’ lawsuit. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber has all the details.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you or someone you know have been diagnosed with bladder cancer or other cancers after prolonged exposure of hair color, visit https://forthepeople.com/hair to submit a claim in 8 clicks or less! HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. A court has just sided with Sean Combs in one of his major lawsuits, and you got to wonder, does this mean something for his criminal case? We're going to lay out what happened. Plus, Boy, oh boy, did the judge have some words for an attorney representing a former producer who's suing Sean Combs for assault? It's something. Time to get into it all right now. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime.

I'm Jesse Weber. Sean Combs just scored a legal win. Now, to be clear, this is not in his criminal case, at least per se. I'm going to talk about what that connection could be because this is about a civil lawsuit. This is about a civil lawsuit, although I do wonder if this is going to be. to have a connection on his criminal case. But no, this concerns one of the first people to ever file a lawsuit against him since his legal troubles began back in 2023. I am talking about his former producer Rodney Little Rod Jones, somebody we have talked about a lot here on Sidebar.

Now, we remember Jones originally filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and others like Cuba Gooding Jr. Combs purported chief of staff, right-hand woman, Christina Corum, other corporate entities. and he filed the first one in February, 2024, and then amended it in April of 2024. And he makes a lot of different claims here. He claims he was present for a shooting. He claims he was subjected to unwanted touching of his private area by Sean Combs. He claims that Combs would walk around him naked, that he tried to groom and entice him into homosexual sex.

He claims that he was sexually assaulted by others in Combs' orbit, like Cuba Gooding Jr. And that he was coerced into commercial sex acts. He is sued for various causes of action, including violations of human trafficking and racketeering statutes, essentially the allegation that Combs operated a criminal enterprise. Now, there has been a legal effort on the part of Sean Combs to have this complaint dismissed against him in various related entities. And he made several arguments. He argued that Jones failed to properly plead or state a claim for the racketeering, human trafficking, or sexual assault claims, which is necessary for civil actions lawsuits.

You need to allege particular facts, particular details, or evidence to show that there was a violation of the law and that you were injured. You need to properly allege a viable legal claim. For instance, he argues that Jones did improperly lay out the elements of a racketeering or RICO claim. And Combs argues that Jones can't just rely on and cite Combs criminal indictment. They, yes, charges him with racketeering conspiracy as well as sex trafficking and a prostitution charge. He can't just rely on that to support his allegations. in this civil case. But Combs also argued that Jones doesn't have standing to sue for Rico.

He doesn't have a legal right to sue because he didn't suffer an economic injury from an alleged RICO violation. And then he makes another argument that Jones failed to plead predicate acts for RICO. Because you see, for RICO, you need to allege and lay out particular facts showing that there was an underlying crime that forms the basis for the RICO count. count? In other words, what were the alleged crimes you say this criminal enterprise was engaged in? So Combs makes the argument that Jones didn't do that properly. In terms of a violation of the sex trafficking count, he makes other arguments for why that should be dismissed. For instance, he makes the argument that Jones failed to properly allege the necessary elements of force, fraud, or coercion that were used to make him engage in a commercial sex act. For the sexual assault claim,

Combs argues that Jones didn't lay out key facts like the where, the when, the how of the alleged assault, that there's not sufficient details that are needed in a complaint. Then Sean Combs takes aim at the premises liability cause of action. So that is where somebody gets injured on your property and you're responsible, you're liable. So here the allegation would be that Jones was allegedly assaulted on property belonging to Sean Combs. But Combs argues there was a lack of foreseeability that the harm would. occur. So here's an example. If I own a store and I don't wipe down a spill on aisle four and somebody slips, I'm responsible because it was foreseeable that that would happen. I neglected my duty. There you go. Liability. So when it comes to the idea that Cuba Gooding Jr., allegedly

sexually assaulted Jones on Combs' yacht, Combs argues, even if you assume this happened, there was no way for me to have predicted this. That's citing a news story about Cuba Gooding Jr. pleading guilty to forcibly kissing a waitress, it doesn't provide me any reason to believe that this actor would propensity to sexually assault men. In terms of the emotional distress claim, Combs makes the argument that they are duplicative of other causes of action alleged in the case and that he didn't properly plead the element of extreme and outrageous conduct that is necessary for that claim. And in terms of the breach of contract claim, in other words, that Jones says Combs never really paid him for the work that he did.

Combs makes the argument that this claim fails because the purported agreement was not in writing and it needed to be in writing under the law. Hey, everybody, this is a Morgan and Morgan legal alert. Emerging reports reveal that hair color products may not come with clear warnings about potential health risks. So if you or someone you know frequently handles hair color chemicals and have been diagnosed with bladder cancer or other cancers, Morgan and Morgan is here to fight on your behalf. Scan the QR code on screen or go to For Thepeople.com. slash hair to start a claim now. Now, before I get into the judge's decision, and there's a lot there,

I want to lay out a little bit of Jones' response to all this. So he makes the argument in his own filings. In order to support the allegations in his complaint, the court, by the federal rules of evidence, they can take judicial notice of certain facts or allegations, meaning take them as true and incorporate them into his complaint in a way. And here, Jones argues that the court should take judicial notice of the allegations from the federal criminal indictment that Combs faces and a number of other sexual assault and misconduct lawsuits that Combs faces, and use that to support Jones's claims in his complaint. And he argues that he didn't fail to state a RICO claim, for example, because based on the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York,

what he had to say in a press conference, we're talking about Damien Williams after Sean Combs' arrest and formal charging. And also the federal indictment itself, Combs and his enterprise, he makes the argument, are presumed guilty of being a RICO criminal organization and that he has properly pled the structure and hierarchy and members of this enterprise. Tell you what? Presumed guilty? We're going to get back to that in a minute. The court definitely had something to say about that. Now, when it comes to the sex trafficking claim, Jones argues that the alleged shooting, the alleged assaults, the alleged displaying of firearms, the alleged threats, those are all evidence of force, fraud, or coercion.

In terms of the claim of sexual assault and the argument, well, you needed to provide more details for this claim, well, Jones responds, and I'm just going to read this to your verbatim, if the defendants would like plaintiff to draw a diagram, plaintiff would happily oblige. It's quite the response. Premises liability, Cuba Gooding Jr. more specifically, Jones responds, to say that it was unforeseeable is laughable at best and downright ridiculous at worst. Cuba Gooding Jr. is an Oscar-winning actor who has fallen from grace. His conviction was international news. Sean Combs knew or should have known that he had an issue keeping his hands

to himself. And there are other arguments made regarding other claims, but you get the point. You get the gist of what we're going to. So now let's get to the judge's decision here. Okay. So in this 31-page written order and opinion from federal judge Paul Oaken, the court granted Sean Combs' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Let me explain. So first, the judge lays out the standard by which to dismiss a complaint or cause of action or claim under the federal rules, that a plaintiff, the person suing, has to lay out, quote, enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

A claim is plausible when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged. In other words, you need to make out a viable, real, legitimate claim that the court can actually grant relief for. That if you lay out all these allegations, taking them as true, there's actually a legal claim here. Now, interestingly, before the court even lays out the legal reasoning here, the judge actually did something. The judge actually issued a warning to somebody that we have talked about before on previous sidebars. Tyrone Blackburn, Rodney Jones attorney. So first, the court basically says that Tyrone Blackburn made, quote, false claims against

defendants in this case and acted incompetently, but nonetheless, the court doesn't feel that he acted necessarily in bad faith, but quite the statement, to say the least. And then the court cites something that we have discussed before. Previous allegations that Tyrone Blackburn didn't properly investigate other cases he was a part of, and how he has a pending referral to the Southern District of New York's disciplinary committee. So why does the court mention all this? Well, Judge Okin writes. In light of this, the court finds much of Blackburn's conduct regarding defendant's motion to dismiss to be unsettling. Blackburn's filings are replete with inaccurate

statements of law, conclusory accusations, and inappropriate ad hominin attacks on opposing counsel. For example, in urging the court to consider a grand jury indictment of Combs on related criminal charges, Blackburn writes, as evidenced by U.S. Attorney Williams Press Conference and the grand jury indictment, defendant Sean Combs and the Combs' RICO Enterprise are presumed guilty of being a RICO criminal organization, that any licensed member of the bar would espouse such an absurd understanding of the law is not just disturbing, but shocking. Then, rather than focusing on the claims pleaded in the lawsuit, Blackburn writes that it is evident from the multiple civil lawsuits in the 14-page indictment the kind of sexually deviant

monster Sean Combs is. Both the operative complaint and Blackburn's opposition brief are full of similar irrelevant insults, misstatements, and exaggerations. In response to defense counsel's understandable objections, Blackburn hurls schoolyard taunts at them, writing that it is clear they are obsessed with me, and although initially flattering, their obsession has become creepy. While the court will not hold Blackburn's antics against Jones, at this point, it warns Blackburn that further misconduct may lead to sanctions or to referral for discipline. Now, honestly, I'm not shocked by this, okay? I was shocked by some of the language that Blackburn had been using in these filings. I was just as shocked as the court. So I'm not

surprised here that the judge is calling him out and essentially warning him. Stop it. But now let's get back into the substantive arguments about this motion to dismiss. So I want to get into whether any or all of Jones's claims should be dismissed. So let's start with the RICO racketeering claim. So the court explains that to establish a RICO claim, you have to say that there was a violation of the RICO statute, that there was an injury, and that that injury had to be caused by predicate acts as part of the criminal enterprise. The problem for Rodney Jones, as laid out by the court, is that his claims of trauma, mental health problems, emotional pain and suffering, and embarrassment, none of those injuries are sufficiently related or tied to the alleged RICO violations.

That's the conclusion from the court. And even Jones claims that he wasn't paid for his work on the Combs Love album, what is essentially a breach of contract claim, but that under the law is not a RICO predicate act. And that's even if he makes the argument he wasn't paid because he refused to participate in the racketeering enterprise. The court says the problem with that. Jones didn't even make that argument, apparently. And furthermore, none of the underlying predicates or underlying alleged crimes or offenses of RICO, sex, drugs, gun trafficking, none of that really affected the defendant's alleged refusal to pay Jones. Rather, Jones even alleges that he felt pressured to participate in all of this illicit activity on behalf of Combs,

not necessarily because of the contract at play, but because he thought that he could get Grammy Awards or expensive homes or future projects and large cash payments. And then another problem for Jones, the court emphasizes, is that he even throws around the word fraud a lot regarding his contract, but he never identifies any specific misrepresentations that were made regarding his contract. So as the court explains in some, whether or not Jones has adequately alleged the existence of a RICO enterprise, he has not tied the activities of that enterprise to defendant's breach of contract or any other business or property harm incurred by Jones. It also bears reiterating that Jones fails to address any of these arguments in his opposition brief.

And while the court prefers to decide issues on the merits, it should not be necessary to root around a 402 paragraph complaint to contrive novel arguments on Jones' behalf. Court's basically saying, we're not going to do the work for you. So in other words, the RICO racketeering claims were thrown out. They were dismissed against Combs, Combs Global Enterprises, and Christina Corum. That is a big win for Sean Combs. And a quick aside here, before we go any further, how could this tie into the criminal case against Sean Combs? Do you remember when Sean Combs' defense counsel in his criminal case what they said

in a recent filing, quote, some of the most salacious allegations were counted in the warrant applications came from producer one. Now, I believe, and I think there's a strong argument to make here, producer one is Rodney Jones. Don't know for sure, but I think there's an argument there. And Combs explains in that filing that Producer One, the government now says it will not even call to testify at trial. These accusations were never credible. They were uncorroborated.

The government has advised us it will not call Producer One as a witness at Combs trial. Presumably, that is because his stories are fantastical and he lacks any credibility. Now, if that is true, that Producer One is not being called as a witness at the criminal trial. And if we take it as true, the producer one is Rodney Jones. perhaps that weakness in his racketeering claim has translated into a weakness into his potential testimony in a criminal racketeering case. I don't know this for sure, but something I thought about. Okay, back to Judge Oaken and back to his ruling.

I want to move on to the TVPA, which is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We're talking human trafficking. We're talking sex trafficking. So here, the court actually says this claim can go forward against Sean Combs and Christina quorum, that Jones sufficiently pleaded this, namely that on numerous occasions, Combs allegedly recruited or enticed Jones to solicit and perform sex acts with commercial sex workers, as well as transported Jones across state and international borders in order to do so, that Combs allegedly secured Jones' compliance with his request, both by promising economic benefits that never

materialized, and by threatening Jones with physical restraint and harm, and that included allegedly confiscating Jones' car keys to physically prevent him from leaving. the allegation that Combs pressured Jones into drinking ecstasy lace liquor, causing Jones to pass out and wake up in a bed with a sex worker, or the allegation that Combs threatened to eat Mr. Jones face, that he allegedly informed Jones, that Combs was willing to kill his own mother so he wouldn't think twice about harming Mr. Jones, that Combs allegedly displayed guns in front of Jones as a way to intimidate him into compliance. And in terms of promising Jones benefits, such as access to record label executives and money to buy instruments.

The judge explains that courts have found that making of similar promises combined with their repudiation and non-performance after the desired sex acts have occurred, that is enough to constitute fraud for purposes of TVPA liability. So in other words, Jones has sufficiently laid out enough claims here to support this human trafficking claim. And moreover, the court says the reason this is also enough to show. show sex trafficking, is the court found that the alleged sexual assaults that Combs committed, they were, quote, commercial under the trafficking statute. Remember commercial sex acts? That Jones alleges that throughout his time living with Mr. Combs, Mr. Jones was the victim of

constant unsolicited and unauthorized groping and touching. And Jones alleges that in order to entice him to accept this unwanted conduct, Combs used access to successful music producers and promise to make sure that Mr. Jones won producer of the year at the Grammys for his work on the love album if he engaged in homosexual acts. Quote, as in the Harvey Weinstein cases, such promises constitute anything of value and are sufficient to transform the resulting sex acts into commercial ones. That is a big deal. That is a very, very big deal. And it's a big deal because I want you to be on the lookout for that similar reasoning in Sean Combs' upcoming criminal case, how you transform, certain sex acts into alleged illegal commercial sex acts for purposes of sex trafficking, through force, fraud, or coercion.

I have to imagine this is going to come up. And when it comes to Christina Corm, as I mentioned, the court said the trafficking statute remains in place for her too, namely because Jones alleges that she was Combs chief of staff and was aware of this sexual misconduct and that she refused to intervene on his behalf and allegedly asked Jones to order sex workers for Combs. By the way, everything that I'm saying here, this is not the court saying, hey, we believe these allegations, we believe this happened. No, it's just saying that Jones has adequately pleaded these claims with sufficient specificity and particularity that they can continue to move forward at this point. Jones still needs to prove this case in front of a jury, okay, or in front of a judge.

Now, while the trafficking claims against Combs and Quorum can move forward, that is not the case for Combs Company, Combs Global Enterprises. No, the court reason that the complaint doesn't properly allege that this company enticed, recruited, or otherwise induced Jones to participate in any commercial sex acts. Therefore, the TVPA, the human trafficking claim as to Combs Global, that is dismissed. Now, what about some of the individual claims? In terms of the claim of sexual assault and remember what Combs' claim was, right, that Jones didn't plead this with enough specificity? Well, the court reasons, look, while Jones does.

allege in general terms that Combs continuously touched and groped him throughout their time living and working together. Jones also alleges specific instances of unwanted sexual contact. And that includes Combs allegedly drugging and sleeping with Jones at Combs' Miami home on February 2nd, 2023. Such allegations, at least some of which include specific dates and descriptions of sex acts are sufficient to provide defendants with adequate notice. So because he has properly pled a plausible claim under these set of facts, this cause of action, this claim can continue against Sean Combs. What about the claim of emotional distress?

The court writes, quote, Jones asserts claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Combs based on the same conduct underlying his sexual assault claim. Jones fails, however, to adequately plead a required element of these torts, severe emotional distress. That element is required and must be pleaded with specificity. Here, Jones merely recites the elements of the tort throughout the operative complaint without providing further detail as to the nature and extent of the emotional suffering he is experienced due to Combs' actions. Jones' intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are therefore dismissed as to Combs. Premises liability. Remember we talked all about that one? The court writes,

Jones also asserts claims for premises liability against Combs based on the alleged sexual assaults committed by Jane Doe 1 and Gooding. Now, Jane Doe 1 is apparently Young Miami's cousin who Jones claims assaulted him at one point in time. Now, for premises liability, the premises owners have to only protect invitees from foreseeable dangers. There also has to be a special relationship between the parties for a duty to arise, namely a duty to prevent injury to another from a third part. party, and the defendant has to have had possession or control of the premises when the alleged injury occurred. So when it comes to Jane Doe, Jones alleges that the assault occurred in Combs' house, meaning that Combs had both possession and control of this property.

And Jones also plead sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference of the existence of at least two special relationships, landowner, invitee, and employer employee, as Jones was working under contract for Combs at the time of this alleged assault. And that even though Jones doesn't allege that Doe had a known history of committing sexual assaults, he alleges that Combs witnessed Doe attempt to straddle and have sex with Jones while, quote, laughing and encouraging her to continue. Jones also alleges that Combs was aware that Jane Doe was assaulting him in the bathroom while it happened and that he did nothing to intervene.

Quote, together, this is sufficient to permit the reasonable inference that Combs knew, or should have known about her propensity to commit sexual assaults and that he violated his duty to prevent her assault on Jones. Regarding Cuba Gooding Jr., the court writes, regarding Gooding, the situation is similar. Jones alleges that Gooding's actions could have been foreseeable to Combs, as Gooding pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge based on sexual misconduct in 2022, among other publicly reported instances of similar misconduct. More importantly, However, Jones alleges that Combs intentionally left him in Gooding alone in a makeshift studio on Combs' yacht after suggesting that Gooding get to know Mr. Jones better.

Along with Jones allegations that Combs was grooming him by frequently suggesting that Jones engaged in homosexual acts supports the plausible inference that Combs foresaw and enabled Gooding's alleged assault of Jones. Combs responds that Gooding had only been accused of assaulting women, not men, making his assault of Jones unforeseeable. it is not implausible as a matter of law to think that someone who has assaulted members of one sex in the past is more likely to assault members of the other sex in the future. And there was also a separate legal question about whether Combs own the yacht if he merely charted it, but the

court resolved that question in Jones favor. So in summary, the court wrote, the court therefore declines to dismiss Jones' premises liability claims. Wow. And finally, you go into the breach of contract claim against Combs and Love Records for allegedly failing to pay Jones for his work on the Love album. Now, there is a particular legal doctrine I have to talk about. It is known as the statute of fraud. So essentially it means that any contract that can't be performed within one year, it's unenforceable unless it's in writing. And this includes, by the way, an indefinite agreement to pay royalties like the alleged contracted issue here. The court writes, Jones fails to respond to this argument other than by arguing that all of the songs composed by Mr. Jones were completed in

less than a year. This is irrelevant, as it is defendant's portion of the contract that could not be completed within a year, not Jones portion. Because the oral agreement is subject to the statute of frauds, Jones contract claims are dismissed. Also, one last thing. Apparently, Jones had requested an extension of time to serve other defendants in this case, Cuba Gooding Jr., Sean Combs's son, Justin Dior Combs. But even though he was apparently granted that extension, apparently he still has not served them, so the court writes, Jones is directed to file a letter with the court explaining the status of service as to Justin and Gooding within two weeks of the date of this opinion. Should Jones fail to do so, the claims against those defendants may be dismissed for

insufficient service or failure to prosecute. And the court adds, Jones has also not yet served Jane Doe 1, but has provided no explanation for his failure to do so. The court therefore dismisses Jones claims against Jane Doe 1. So in conclusion, Combs motion to dismiss is granted in part and it's denied in part. The claims for Rico, emotional distress, contract, they are all dismissed, as is the sex trafficking claim against Combs Global. However, the rest of the claims, they're staying. Quite the legal development, to say the least, in this case. But thank you so much for joining us here on Sidebar and following us as we continue to go through all of this.

Come check us out. Come subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.