Skip To...
Universal Music Group (UMG) reacts to claims of their involvement in Sean “Diddy” Combs‘ scandal following Sara Rivers’ lawsuit. The former Making The Band singer, who worked with the disgraced rapper during her stint on the MTV series, took a strike at Diddy in a lawsuit accusing him of inhumane treatment, sexual harassment, assault, and acting recklessly with her career, among other claims. Rivers, who is demanding damages from Diddy, named agencies like Viacom, MTV, Universal Music Group, as well as Bad Boy Records employees who had a link to the series as co-defendants.
Days later, UMG is hitting back at Sara Rivers’ lawsuit against Diddy, debunking claims of their involvement, per TMZ. The music agency this week filed a motion to dismiss the case against them, citing time lapses. The group stressed that Rivers’ allegations were time-barred, referencing the deadline for New York’s Gender-Motivated Violence Act, which expired in February. They believe the implication of this is that federal claims are preempted by New York state law. Additionally, Universal Music Group argued that the claims against them are irrelevant, considering they only constituted 10 out of over 1003 paragraphs contained in the original lawsuit filed in February.
Sara Rivers’ Lawsuit Against Diddy Questioned
Among the claims in her lawsuit was that Diddy subjected her to mistreatment, including one witnessed by millions in the infamous “Cheesecake” incident on Making the Band 2. The episode saw Rivers and the rest of Da Band walk several blocks to get a slice of Junior’s Cheesecake to satisfy Diddy’s cravings for a sweet treat. Rivers also alleged that the Bad Boy Records founder forced her to sleep in an open bay alongside four males, disregarding that she was married at the time. Additionally, the disgraced rapper subjected her to sexual harassment and assault. She cited an incident where he allegedly backed her into a corner and restrained her movement while running his hands across her breasts.
However, Diddy’s legal team denied the allegation on his behalf, dismissing it as “yet another example of false claims” filed against him. His lawyers also insinuated that Sarah Rivers only brought up the lawsuit against Diddy when she did in an attempt to cash in on New York’s Gender-Motivated Violence Act days before its expiration. The GMVA, which Universal Music Group also cited in their court documents, allowed victims of gender-based violence to sue their assailants and those who enabled the violence, just as Sarah Rivers did in her lawsuit against Diddy.
Diddy’s Defense Team Shakes Up Trial
UMG’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit comes as Diddy’s racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking trial in New York nears its end, with several unexpected twists that may work in the rapper’s favor. In a surprising turn, the mogul’s defense team disclosed their intentions to present no witnesses on their own to counter the 34 witnesses and other incriminating evidence presented in court. While this decision seems counterproductive in Diddy’s weeks-long trial, legal experts believe it is the ultimate move to close the case in his favor. Explaining the “calculated strategy,” a former District of New Jersey federal prosecutor, Mitchell Epner, divulged,
“It’s more likely than not at a trial that the defense is not going to call any witnesses. So, what you may hear the defense counsel say during closing arguments is that the prosecution’s witnesses made our case. We didn’t have a burden to prove our case, and the cross-examination of their witnesses makes it clear that we’re right and they’re wrong.”
This twist in Diddy’s trial, while not unusual in a legal proceeding, is quite unexpected, as just last week, his defence team had stated they had three witnesses to call to the stand, including a former VP of Bad Boy Records. This abrupt change of heart, which experts call a calculated risk, may indicate an unwillingness of these witnesses to testify, or his defense team’s way of avoiding putting these witnesses forward and exposing them to grilling by the prosecutors, which may unleash further damaging evidence against Diddy. In any case, that indicates the testimonies the would-have-been witnesses had to offer had little benefit to his case, especially when compared to the damning potential.
