Harve Pierre, as soon as a high government at Sean “Diddy” Combs’ Dangerous Boy empire, is pushing to have a lawsuit towards him by singer Daybreak Richard thrown out of courtroom.
The case facilities round an altercation that allegedly occurred in December 2010 at a Manhattan recording studio.
Richard claims Pierre was concerned within the incident, which she says left her confined towards her will for hours.
The lawsuit alleges that Diddy’s bodyguard forcibly eliminated Richard from the studio throughout an argument, detaining her inside a automotive for a number of hours earlier than finally releasing her at Pierre’s order.
In response to Richard, this solely occurred after her father arrived on the scene and demanded her launch.
Pierre’s legal professional, Scott E. Leemon, argues that the case must be dismissed for a number of causes, together with the inapplicability of a 2022 modification to the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act (GMVL).
Leemon additionally insisted that the accusations didn’t set up a ample authorized hyperlink between Pierre and Diddy’s alleged actions.
He mentioned, “The grievance fails to assist an inexpensive inference that Mr. Pierre enabled Combs’ conduct.”
Additional complicating the case for Richard, Pierre’s authorized workforce claims that the allegations of false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional misery are outdated.
“New York State has a one-year statute of limitations for claims like these,” defined Leemon. “Even when the claims had been well timed, they lack the required proof suggesting that Pierre was concerned in any tortious act.”
The grievance additionally accuses Pierre of breaching an implied contract, however Leemon argues that such a declare requires proof of a binding settlement, which Richard’s swimsuit doesn’t present.
“There is no such thing as a allegation of any contractual obligation between the events,” he mentioned.
As well as, accusations of fraud and intentional misrepresentation had been raised throughout the grievance, however Pierre’s workforce believes these claims are unsubstantiated.
“The grievance’s imprecise and undifferentiated allegations of fraud towards all defendants fail to fulfill the specificity requirements required in such circumstances,” Leemon remarked.
Pierre’s authorized workforce stays assured that the pending movement to dismiss will succeed, saying they imagine the courtroom will decide that Pierre shouldn’t be chargeable for any alleged misdeeds.
“The grievance fails on a number of grounds, and we’re optimistic that Mr. Pierre shall be cleared,” Leemon concluded.
