Jay-Z plans to file a dismissal motion in the sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by a Jane Doe plaintiff. Mikael ‘Mike’ Väisänen photographed Jay-Z.
On the heels of several twists and turns, the court has approved Jay-Z’s request to seek the dismissal of a rape lawsuit filed against him by a Jane Doe plaintiff.
This latest development in the ugly and widely publicized legal battle came in the form of a brief court order, which was followed by a pair of related letters to the presiding judge.
Several headlines later, many people are aware of the high-stakes complaint, which accuses Jay-Z of sexually assaulting the now-adult plaintiff when she was 13 years old.
So far, the Roc Nation founder has fought the action tooth and nail, including refuting the underlying allegations and unsuccessfully attempting to reveal the accuser’s identity.
Then, amidst a sub-dispute with the aforementioned Buzbee (who represents over 200 alleged Diddy victims), Jay-Z was officially served with the lawsuit last month.
Arguing that the action is time-barred in one of the mentioned letters to the court, 55-year-old Jay-Z is set to levy a formal dismissal motion targeting the lawsuit.
Keeping the focus on Jay-Z’s letter, the plaintiff cannot receive relief for her lone claim under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act because the law was passed in late 2000, “three months after” the alleged “conduct occurred,” according to the text.
In response to Buzbee’s retort on behalf of the accuser, Jay-Z’s argument “is unpersuasive, as it is contrary to the law’s primary intention: to make it easier for victims of gender-motivated violence to seek civil remedies,” according to the letter.
Next, in terms of the arguments Jay-Z will make in a formal dismissal motion, the defendant’s submission clarifies that even if that law could be applied to the alleged conduct, it would have to have occurred in New York City.
Given the amended complaint’s description of the alleged sexual assault location – a “large white residence” reached after a 20-minute drive from the Big Apple’s Radio City Music Hall – Jay-Z claims that this structure would have been “located outside the territorial boundaries of New York City.”
“As Defendant seeks to rely on evidence outside of the pleadings,” the answer reads, “which would transform a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment, and as discovery it [sic] not yet underway, it is respectfully submitted that Defendant’s proposed motion is procedurally improper and should be denied.”
Finally, Jay-Z claims that the suit is time-barred under New York’s Child Victims Act, but the seemingly unconcerned Buzbee believes that the court previously “rejected the very same argument” in Doe v. Black.
The court did not hesitate to make a decision, siding with Jay-Z and his counsel, who have until February 6th to file their dismissal motion. The alleged victim will then have until the 28th to submit her opposition papers, with Jay-Z’s response (if any) due by March 14th, according to the order dated today.
