Jay-Z lawyer officially allowed to file for dismissal over rape accusation, judge rules
Share:
A motion by the legal team of Jay-Z has been granted a request to be allowed to file for a dismissal in his ongoing legal battle. The 55-year-old rapper – whose real name is Shawn Carter – has been accused of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl at an MTV Video Music Awards after party in 2000 along with Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs, which he has denied.
![[Diddy in shiny suit and jay Z in black suit as they hug and grin at each other]](https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/GettyImages-1194049058.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=646)
On Thursday, Judge Analisa Torres granted his attorney Alex Spiro’s request to enter a dismissal motion in the lawsuit. In court documents shared on X by law journalist Meghann Cuniff, the judge wrote: ‘Carter’s request to file a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint is GRANTED.’.
Tony Buzbee, who is the lawyer representing Carter’s accuser, has responded with an objection to the request, which is due to the court by February 5. The accuser, known as Jane Doe in court documents, has a deadline of February 28 to ‘file her opposition papers’, which would then give the rapper’s team until March 14 to ‘file his reply, if any’.
![[Jay-Z attends a premiere for the film ''Mufasa: The Lion King'' in Los Angeles]](https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/SEI_232644414-33c3.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=646)
His legal team has claimed his accuser was ‘required – but failed’ to address the issues in the letter within five business days, which ended on December 27. Spiro argued that Bzbee ignored critical details that allegedly nullify the case, while he previously cited the timing of the events and said the legal statute Jane Doe is suing under (the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act) – was not implemented until three months later.
In the December 30 filing, his legal team said: ‘The GMV Law was not enacted until December 19, 2000, three months after [Jay-Z’s accuser] claims the conduct occurred, and cannot apply retroactively to create a cause of action unavailable to Plaintiff at the time in question.’.
