Table of Contents
Sean “Diddy” Combs was served 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 denial cycle, the disgraced hip-hop mogul’s legal reps have slammed the sexual assault case as a “frivolous” one. (Also read: Diddy accuses former Bad Boy Records singer of ‘conveniently’ manufacturing ‘false claims’ amid surging legal trouble)
On Thursday, the embattled rapper, already at the centre of numerous lawsuits, filed two emergency motions to vacate the judgment awarded to Cardello-Smith by Judge Anna Marie Anzalone in Lenawee County Circuit Court.
The request initiated by Comb’s attorneys lays out that the plaintiff is a “convicted felon who is serving time in prison for kidnapping and sexual assault.” They also insisted that the Michigan inmate has repeatedly filed such claims against the Bad Boy Records founder, labelling his sexual assault allegations against Combs “objectively unbelievable.”
Diddy slams Michigan convict’s sexual assault lawsuit as ‘frivolous’
Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith sued Diddy in June for an alleged 1997 incident. He is currently serving up to 75 years for 2008 and 2019 first-degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping charges.
Also read | Jennifer Lopez ready to swoop in on famous $55m LA estate amid claims she wasn’t fond of mansion shared with Ben Affleck
In addition to rejecting the convict’s accusations, Diddy’s attorneys claimed that he was never intimated about the other man’s complaint.
“This is a frivolous lawsuit against a prominent businessman, based on obvious fabrications, filed by a convicted rapist and serial litigant with an overactive imagination and a thirst for fame,” the motion reads per official documents obtained by USA Today.
The filing also states that Combs only learned about the action for the “first time three days ago, when media outlets 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 keep his story straight as to where this supposedly occurred,” the official request continues. “In his complaint, (Cardello-Smith) alleges that the assault occurred after he met Mr. Combs at a restaurant in Detroit. In his pretrial statement, however, (Cardello-Smith) alleges that the assault occurred in Adrian, Michigan.”
What does Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith’s suit accuse Diddy of?
Following Cardello-Smith’s June civil suit filing against the “Bad Boy For Life,” he was granted a temporary restraining order in August, preventing Combs from selling assets that could be “used to compensate Cardello-Smith for possible damages,” The Detroit Metro Times reported.
Also read | Former NCT member Taeil’s sex crime case forwarded to prosecution without detainment
Other reports also suggest that Combs allegedly visited the convict in prison later that month and offered him $2.3 million to retract his complaint.
The Michigan inmate previously alleged that he and Combs crossed paths in 1997 at an afterparty held at a Holiday Inn in Detroit. They eventually joined two women in a private hotel for a sexual encounter, where Diddy allegedly groped Cardello-Smith. He also accused the rapper of drugging him and sexually assaulting him.
Diddy also files for restraining order to be dissolved
While seeking to dissolve the recent default judgment, Diddy has also filed a separate motion so that the temporary restraining order granted to Cardello-Smith could be removed. His lawyers have cited legal failing, including an alleged violation of the rapper’s constitutional rights.
Combs’ attorneys wrote in the motion, “Because (Cardello-Smith) was not served with the summons, complaint and the injunction motion before the injunction order was entered, the injunction order acts as an ex parte pre-judgment attachment of (Combs’) real property.”
“An ex parte pre-judgment attachment of real property to secure the payment of a potential judgment is unconstitutional as it violates the due process rights of the party subject to attachment.”
