Sean “Diddy” Combs was given a $100 million default judgment in Michigan inmate Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith’s lawsuit after he failed to attend a virtual court hearing on September 9. Continuing the cycle of denial, the disgraced hip-hop mogul’s legal representatives have labelled the sexual assault case as “frivolous”. (Also Read: Diddy accuses former Bad Boy Records singer of ‘conveniently’ fabricating ‘false claims’ amid legal trouble)
On Thursday, the embattled rapper, already at the center of multiple lawsuits, filed two emergency motions in Lenawee County Circuit Court to dismiss the judgment handed down to Cardello-Smith by Judge Anna Marie Anzalone.
The request, initiated by Combs’ lawyers, states that the plaintiff is a “convicted felon serving time in prison for kidnapping and sexual assault.” They also emphasized that the Michigan inmate has repeatedly filed similar claims against the Bad Boy Records founder, and labeled his sexual assault allegations against Combs “virtually unbelievable.”
Diddy calls Michigan convict’s sexual assault lawsuit ‘frivolous’
Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith sued Diddy in June over an alleged incident from 1997. He is currently serving up to 75 years in prison for first-degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping charges from 2008 and 2019.
Read this also | JENNIFER Lopez is set to buy a famous Los Angeles property worth $55 million despite claims she didn’t like the mansion she shared with Ben Affleck.
In addition to the dismissal of the guilty plea allegations, Diddy’s attorneys claimed they were never notified of the other man’s complaint.
According to official documents obtained by USA Today, the motion states, “This is a frivolous lawsuit against a prominent businessperson, based on obvious fabrications, filed by a convicted rapist and a serial litigator with an overactive imagination and a thirst for fame.”
The filing also states that Combs “first learned of the action three days ago, when the media reported that this Court had entered a $100 million default judgment against him.”
“(Cardello-Smith) alleges that he was assaulted in 1997, but he cannot accurately state his story as to where it allegedly occurred,” the official request further states. “In his complaint, (Cardello-Smith) alleges that the assault occurred while he met Mr. Combs at a restaurant in Detroit. However, in his pre-trial statement, (Cardello-Smith) alleges that the assault occurred in Adrian, Michigan.”
What is Diddy accused of in Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith’s lawsuit?
After Cardello-Smith filed a civil lawsuit against the “Bad Boy for Life” alum in June, he was granted a temporary restraining order in August, preventing Combs from selling assets that “could be used to reimburse Cardello-Smith for potential damages,” the Detroit Metro Times reports.
Read this also | Former NCT member Taeil’s sex crime case sent to prosecution without detention
Other reports also suggest that Combs allegedly visited the offender in jail later that same month and offered him $2.3 million to withdraw his complaint.
The Michigan inmate previously alleged that she and Combs met at an afterparty held at the Holiday Inn in Detroit in 1997. They eventually joined two women to have sex at a private hotel, where Diddy allegedly groped Cardello-Smith. She also accused the rapper of drugging her and sexually assaulting her.
Diddy also applied to have the restraining order dissolved
Seeking to vacate the recent default judgment, Diddy has also filed a separate motion to lift the temporary restraining order served on Cardello-Smith. His lawyers have cited legal failings, including alleged violations of the rapper’s constitutional rights.
“Because (Cardello-Smith) was not served with the summons, complaint and injunction motion before the injunction order was entered, the injunction order operates as a unilateral pre-judgment attachment of (Combs’) real property,” Combs’ attorneys wrote in the motion.
“A unilateral prejudgment attachment of real property to secure payment of a potential judgment is unconstitutional because it violates the due process rights of the party subject to the attachment.”
