Podcast Episode Details
Back to Podcast Episodes
The Mega Edition: Diddy Moves To Dismiss The Richard's Allegation And Mariott Responds (10/20/25)
Marriott International, Inc. has requested a pre-motion conference with Judge Vyskocil in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Candice McCrary’s Complaint in the case McCrary v. Sean Combs, Marriott International, Inc., et al. Marriott states that despite seeking the Plaintiff's consent for the motion, no response was received. While Marriott expresses sympathy for the abuse described in McCrary’s Complaint and acknowledges the seriousness of allegations involving gender-motivated violence, it argues that it is not a proper party to the claim. Marriott asserts that the Complaint fails to meet the notice pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), describing the allegations as too vague.
Furthermore, Marriott contends that McCrary’s claim relies on the 2022 amendment to the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGMVPL), which cannot be applied retroactively to conduct that occurred before the amendment. Citing the recent decision in Doe v. Combs (2024), Marriott notes that corporate defendants cannot be held liable under this statute for actions predating 2022. Since the alleged conduct against Marriott occurred in 2004, it argues that the claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Combs Defendants have notified the Court of their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Dawn Richard under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Richard’s Complaint asserts 21 causes of action against more than two dozen defendants, alleging a wide-ranging sex trafficking conspiracy. However, the Combs Defendants argue that the claims are baseless, stating that even if the alleged facts were true (which they deny), they do not substantiate the claims made in the Complaint.
The Defendants further contend that the claims are insufficiently pled, lack legal merit, and are barred due to being untimely by several years. Additionally, they highlight that contractual releases signed by the Plaintiff preclude these claims. The Defendants characterize the Complaint as an attempt to sensationalize what they describe as a straightforward commercial dispute.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.121.0.pdf
Published on 1 month, 3 weeks ago