An anonymous woman who filed a lawsuit against JAY-Z and Diddy for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was 13 years old has dropped her lawsuit, USA TODAY reports.
According to the reports, a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed in New York federal court and Jane Doe dismissed the case “with prejudice,” meaning it cannot be re-filed again in the future. The suit was filed by Tony Buzbee.
Taking to Instagram, JAY-Z celebrated his legal victory and maintained his innocence.
The frivolous, fictitious and appalling allegations have been dismissed. This civil suit was without merit and never going anywhere. The fictional tale they created was laughable, if not for the seriousness of the claims. I would not wish this experience on anyone,” JAY-Z wrote.
“The trauma that my wife, my children, loved ones and I have endured can never be dismissed. This 1-800 lawyer gets to file a suit hiding behind Jane Doe, and when they quickly realize that the money grab is going to fail, they get to walk away with no repercussions. The system has failed,” his post continued. “The court must protect victims, OF COURSE, while with the same ethical responsibility, the courts must protect the innocent from being accused without a shred of evidence. May the truth prevail for all victims and those falsely accused equally.”
Alex Spiro, JAY-Z’s attorney also issued a statement regarding the dismissal of the case.
“The false case against JAY-Z, that never should have been brought, has been dismissed with prejudice,” Spiro wrote. “By standing up in the face of heinous and false allegations, Jay has done what few can – he pushed back, he never settled, he never paid 1 red penny, he triumphed and cleared his name.”
A Jane Doe initially filed the suit against Combs in October. Jay-Z’s name was added to the suit two months later. She alleged that Combs and Jay-Z raped her in 2000 after bringing her to an MTV Music Video Awards afterparty.
In December, JAY-Z sought to have the case thrown out and pushed for Jane Doe’s name to be made public—both efforts were rejected by the court.
“Plaintiff asserts a violation of the GMV Law for conduct that purportedly occurred in September 2000,” the legal motion read. “But the GMV Law was not enacted until December 19, 2000, three months after the FAC claims the conduct occurred, and cannot apply retroactively to create a cause of action unavailable to Plaintiff at the time in question.”
Leave a Reply