John Doe v. Combs

2025 NY Slip Op 32902(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: August 18, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 152014/2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

John Doe v Combs 2025 NY Slip Op 32902(U) August 18, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152014/2025 Judge: Leslie A. Stroth Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/19/2025 12 :44 PM] INDEX NO. 152014/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LESLIE A. STROTH PART 12M Justice --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 152014/2025 JOHN DOE, 08/04/2025, 08/23/2025, Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 10/03/2025 - V - MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 003 004 SEAN COMBS , DADDY'S HOUSE RECORDINGS INC ,CE OPCO LLC D/B/A COMBS GLOBAL F/K/A COMBS ENTERPRISES LLC ,BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS , INC.,BAD BOY PRODUCTIONS HOLDINGS , INC.,BAD BOY HOLDINGS, INC.,BAD BOY RECORDS LLC,BAD BOY ENTERTAINMENT LLC ,BAD BOY DECISION + ORDER ON PRODUCTIONS , LLC ,ORGANIZATIONAL DOES 1-10 , MOTION INDIVIDUAL DOES 1-10, BAD BOY BOOKS HOLDINGS, INC

Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 19, 20, 36, 37 , 38 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 26, 27 , 28 , 29, 30, 31, 32, 39 , 40, 41 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 42 , 43 , 45, 46, 47 were read on this motion to/for RENEWAL

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a musician, alleges that he traveled to California in late October 2022 to

perform in the Los Angeles area. On November 4, 2022, while performing outside a nightclub,

he was allegedly approached by a man claiming to be a talent scout for Defendant Sean Combs.

The man invited Plaintiff to what was described as an exclusive birthday party hosted by Combs,

and a driver later transported Plaintiff to a private residence.

152014/2025 DOE, JOHN vs. COMBS, SEAN ET AL Page 1 of 8 Motion No. 002 003 004

1 of 8 [* 1] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/19/2025 12 :44 PM] INDEX NO. 152014/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

Plaintiff alleges that, upon arrival, he met Combs, who offered him a drink and discussed

potential oppo11unities in the music industry. Combs then allegedly invited Plaintiff to another

room under the pretense of showing him jewelry. Plaintiff claims he began feeling disoriented,

believes he was drugged, and that Combs then sexually assaulted him.

The next morning, Plaintiff alleges he was given intravenous fluids by an unknown

person and driven back to the nightclub. Plaintiff asserts that he suffered physical and emotional

harm and did not report the incident at the time due to Combs' notoriety and influence.

Plaintiff asserts one cause of action for sexual battery pursuant to California Civil Code §

1708.5 against Mr. Combs and the associated business entities Defendants, alleging they enabled

or failed to prevent the misconduct.

In Motion Sequence 002, Defendants Sean Combs ("Mr. Combs"), Daddy's House

Recordings Inc., CE OpCo, LLC d/b/a Combs Global) f/k/a Combs Enterprises, LLC, Bad Boy

Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Books Holdings.

Inc., and Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, and Bad Boy Productions LLC (collectively, the "Combs

Defendants") move to dismiss, alleging that Plaintiffs complaint is untimely and fails to state a

cause of action as against those Defendants. In Motion Sequence 003, remaining Defendant Bad

Boy Records ("BBRLLC') moves to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint as against BBRLLC asserting

that Plaintiffs complaint is refuted by documentary evidence, that it is time-barred and that it

fails to state a cause of action. 1 Collectively, all Defendants move on substantially similar

grounds in both motions to dismiss the complaint.

1 Additionally, the Court refers to all Defendants besides Mr. Combs collectively as "Company Defendants"

152014/2025 DOE, JOHN vs. COMBS, SEAN ET AL Page 2 of 8 Motion No. 002 003 004

2 of 8 [* 2] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/19/2025 12:44 P~ INDEX NO. 152014/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

In Motion Sequence 004, the Combs Defendants move to renew their opposition to

Motion Sequence 001, in which the Court granted Plaintiff the ability to proceed anonymously in

this action.

DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (MOTION SEQUENCES 002 & 003)

Standard of Review

Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(l) '•dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence

submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law." (Leon v

Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [ 1994])

On a CPLR 3211 (a)(5) motion to dismiss, "a defendant bears the initial burden of

establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired. In considering the motion, a

court must take the allegations in the complaint as true and resolve all inferences in favor of the

plaintiff." Benn v Benn, 82 AD3d 548, 548 ( I st Dept 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). Upon such a showing, ·'the burden shift[s] to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as

to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether it

actually commenced the action or interposed the subject cause of action within the applicable

limitations period." Bailey v Peerstate Equity Fund, L.P., 126 AD3d 738, 740 (2d Dept 2015)

(internal citations omitted). "[P]laintiffs submissions in response to the motion must be given

their most favorable intendment." (Benn, 82 AD3d at 548 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted)).

Pursuant to CPLR 321 I (a) (7), a party may move to dismiss a claim on the ground that

the pleading fails to state a cause of action. Upon such a motion, the Court must accept the facts

alleged as true and determine simply whether plaintiffs facts fit within any cognizable legal

theory. (See CPLR 3026; Marone v Marone, 50 NY2d 481 (1980)). The complaint shall be

152014/2025 DOE, JOHN vs. COMBS, SEAN ET AL Page 3 of 8 Motion No. 002 003 004

3 of 8 [* 3] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/19/2025 12 :44 PM] INDEX NO. 152014/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

liberally construed, and the allegations are given the benefit of every possible favorable

inference. (See Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 (1994)).

Plaintiff's Claims are Timely

Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(5), arguing that

Plaintiffs sole cause of action for sexual battery is untimely under New York law and must be

dismissed pursuant to CPLR 202. Defendants' motion is denied.

CPLR 202, New York's "borrowing statute," provides that when a nonresident plaintiff

sues on a cause of action that accrued outside New York, the action must be timely under both

the law of New York and the jurisdiction where the cause of action accrued. (Glob. Fin. Corp. v

Triarc Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 525, 528 [1999]; Stuart v Am. Cyanamid Co., 158 F.3d 622, 627 [2d Cir

1998].) Plaintiff, a California resident, alleges that the sexual battery occurred in California in

2022. Accordingly, CPLR 202 applies, and the Court must assess the timeliness of the action

under both California and New York law.

Under California law, the statute of limitations for civil claims arising from sexual assault

is ten years. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code§ 340.16.) In addition, California law presently includes a

statutory ·'lookback window" through December 31, 2026 for claims involving sexual assault

that would otherwise be time-barred. (See Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act, AB

2777.) Plaintiff commenced this action in 2025, less than three years after the alleged 2022

incident. The claim is therefore timely under California law.

The claim is likewise timely under New York law. CPLR 213-c, as amended in 2019,

provides that an action to recover damages for physical, psychological, or other injury or

condition suffered as a result of conduct that would constitute certain specified sexual offenses

"'may be commenced ... within twenty years." (CPLR 213-c.) Courts have applied the amended

152014/2025 DOE, JOHN vs. COMBS, SEAN ET AL Page 4 of 8 Motion No. 002 003 004

4 of 8 [* 4] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/19/2025 12 :44 PM] INDEX NO. 152014/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

statute prospectively to incidents occurring on or after September 18, 2019. Because the alleged

conduct occurred in 2022, the 20-year limitations period under CPLR 213-c applies. Plaintiffs

filing in 2025 is thus timely under New York law as well.

Defendants ' argument that the Court should apply the one-year statute of limitations for

common law battery under CPLR 215(3) is unpersuasive where the alleged conduct, as here,

would constitute a criminal sexual offense under New York Penal Law, CPLR 213-c governs.

(Carroll v Trump, 650 F Supp 3d 213, 220 [SONY 2023]).

Failure to State a Claim - Company Defendants

The Company Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7),

arguing that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable cause of action against them under any theory of

liability. Specifically, they assert that Plaintiffs claims are impermissibly based on a theory of

respondeat superior and that the allegations lack the particularity required by CPLR 3013.

Plainti ff opposes the motion, arguing that the Complaint pleads alternative theories of liability

and th at dismissal at the pleading stage is premature.

"The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts

committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment. Pursuant to this doctrine,

under both New York and California law, the employer may be liable when the employee acts

negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural

incident of the employment'' (Judith M v. Sisters of Charity Hosp. , 93 N.Y.2d 932 (1999); Lisa

M v Henry Mayo Newhall Mem. Hosp., 12 Cal 4th 291 , 296, 907 P2d 358, 360 [ 1995]).

It is well-settled that sexual assault and other forms of sexual misconduct are personal in

nature and are therefore not acts within the scope of employment. (See Spielman v. Carrino ; 77

152014/2025 DOE, JOHN vs. COMBS, SEAN ET AL Page 5 of 8 Motion No. 002 003 004

[* 5] 5 of 8 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/19/2025 12:44 P~ INDEX NO. 152014/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

A.D.3d 816 [2 nd Dept 20 IO]; Juarez v Boy Scouts of Am., Inc., 81 Cal App 4th 377, 393, 97 Cal

Rptr 2d 12, 23 [Cal Ct App 2000]).

However, dismissal of the claims against the Company Defendants in their entirety is not

warranted. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Combs used his affiliated companies, including

the Company Defendants, to facilitate his predatory conduct, and that those entities enabled and

failed to prevent the assault through a lack of supervision, failure to adopt protective policies, or

willfu l blindness to a pattern of misconduct. These allegations are sufficient, at this early stage,

to support potential theories of liability including negligent supervision, failure to protect, and

enabling tortious conduct.

Plaintiff further alleges that the corporate entities were created and operated by Combs to

support his broader enterprise and that the use of the "Bad Boy" brand served as the basis for

luring Plaintiff into the setting where the assault occurred. The question of whether any of the

Company Defendants played a role in organizing, endorsing, or profiting from the event in

question is one of fact. As such, dismissal is premature prior to discovery. (see Cortlandt St.

Recovery Corp. v Bonder man, 3 I NY3d 30, 49 [2018]).

Group Pleading

The Court also declines to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of "group pleading."

While the Company Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to differentiate among the individual

corporate entities, group allegations are not fatal where, as here, the Complaint alleges a course

of conduct involving overlapping ownership and branding, and the identity of responsible parties

may be clarified through discovery. (see Pludeman v N. Leasing Sys. , Inc., 10 NY3d 486 [2008])

The use of collective references to "Combs Business'' and ·'Company Defendants'' is not, at this

152014/2025 DOE, JOHN vs. COMBS, SEAN ET AL Page 6 of 8 Motion No. 002 003 004

[* 6] 6 of 8 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/19/2025 12:44 P~ INDEX NO. 152014/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

stage, a basis for dismissal where the allegations provide sufficient notice of the claims asserted

and the conduct challenged.

Accordingly, Defendants have not made a prima facie case that Plaintiffs complaint

should be dismissed at this early stage of the litigation.

COMBS DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RENEW AL (MOTION SEQUENCE

004)

The Combs Defendants move pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) to renew their opposition to

Plaintiffs previously granted motion for anonymity in Motion Sequence 001. and upon renewal ,

to vacate the prior order and deny that motion.

·'A motion for leave to renew or reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the

Supreme Court . A motion for renewal 'shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior

motion that would change the prior determination ' (CPLR 2221 [e] [2])" (HSBC Bank USA , NA.

v. Halls, 98 A.D.3d 718 [2 nd Dept 2012]).

The Combs Defendants point the court to decisions in which this Court has issued

materially identical decisions in related cases rejecting anonymity motions on the grounds that

those motions for anonymity were unsupported by admissible evidence. Specifically, the Court

points to Index Numbers 152013/2025 , 152015/2025, and 1520 I 7/2025. In those decisions, the

Court denied anonymity based on the absence of an affirmation or affidavit in admissible form,

compl iant with CPLR 2106. In each instance, the Court denied the motion for anonymity where

the supporting declaration did not include the language required by CPLR 2106 and was

therefore inadmissible.

The same defect is present here. Plaintiff's Anonymity Motion is supported solely by a

declaration that does not contain the required statutory language under CPLR 2106 and is

152014/2025 DOE, JOHN vs . COMBS, SEAN ET AL Page 7 of 8 Motion No. 002 003 004

7 of 8 [* 7] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/19/2025 12:44 P~ INDEX NO. 152014/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/19/2025

therefore inadmissible. As such, this case is legally indistinguishable from those decided by this

Court on May 12, 2025. Defendants could not have raised this authority in their opposition ,

which was filed in March 2025, prior to the Court ' s intervening decisions. These clarifying

rulings constitute a change in decisional law sufficient to warrant renewal under CPLR 2221 (e).

Accordingly, the Court grants the Combs Defendants motion for renewal, and upon

renewal Plaintiffs motion for anonymity is denied without prejudice to renew within 30 days.

The court has considered the remaining arguments and finds such unavailing .

Accordingly; it is hereby

ORDERED that Motions 002 and 003 to dismiss the complaint are denied; and it is

further

ORDERED that Motion 004 for renewal is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that upon renewal, Plaintiffs motion for anonymity is denied without

prejudice to renew within 30 days; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff must proceed by Plaintiffs legal name for the remainder of this

action;

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

8/18/2025 DATE HON!- m~.S51

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION J.S.C. GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART 0 OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

152014/2025 DOE, JOHN vs. COMBS, SEAN ET AL Page 8 of 8 Motion No. 002 003 004

8 of 8 [* 8]