Jay-Z’s legal representative successfully received approval from Judge Analisa Torres to file a motion to dismiss the Jane Doe lawsuit.
In court documents shared by legal reporter Meghann Cuniff on X, Thursday, Torres granted Carter’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint.
“Carter’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is GRANTED.”
Judge Torres granted attorney Alex Spiro’s request to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit accusing Jay-Z of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2000. This was met with opposition from attorney Tony Buzbee of this woman.
This motion will be carried on February 6. pic.twitter.com/k7UqPXbZaW
– Meghann Cuniff (@meghanncuniff) January 2, 2025
Attorney Tony Buzbee, who represents Jane Doe, filed a response on December 31 opposing the request. Jay-Z’s accuser must file opposing papers by the end of February.
This allows Beyoncé’s husband and his team until mid-March to respond if deemed necessary.
Spiro previewed his arguments in his request. Judges deciding motions to dismiss must admit the facts presented are true; The arguments revolve around legal issues such as statute of limitations, etc pic.twitter.com/l7BVQ66rX2
– Meghann Cuniff (@meghanncuniff) January 2, 2025
Cuniff explained that when judges consider motions to dismiss, they must consider the alleged facts as true. The focus of the arguments revolved around legal issues such as statute of limitations.
Torres also required that attorneys obtain court approval before filing motions.
Buzbee objected to the motion for dismissal in a New Year’s Eve letter.
For context, not every federal judge requires attorneys to seek permission from the court to file motions. This is a rule specific to Judge Torres and her civil cases. pic.twitter.com/JUtWY2NBXj
– Meghann Cuniff (@meghanncuniff) January 2, 2025
In legal papers filed on December 30 by Jay-Z’s lawyers, led by attorney Alex Spiro, it is mentioned that Jay-Z contacted Plaintiff on December 19, referring addressed several concerns that they believed led to the dismissal of the case.
These concerns include technical issues, expired deadlines and the jurisdictions covered.
In response to the allegations against Jay-Z, his legal team emphasized that the accuser did not respond to the demands outlined in the letter within the specified five-day period, which ended on December 27.
According to TMZ’s review of legal documents, Buzbee left out key details that undermine the case, as stated by Spiro.
At the MTV Music Awards after-party in September 2000, allegations arose against Jay-Z and Sean “Diddy” Combs for assaulting Doe.
Spiro has indicated plans to file a motion for dismissal based on the time difference. The victim’s case falls under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, which was passed in December 2000, three months after the alleged incident occurred.
Jay-Z’s attorneys stated in a December 30 filing that “the GMV Act was not enacted until December 19, 2000, three months after Doe claimed that such conduct had occurred and could not have been applies retroactively to create a cause of action that Plaintiff did not have at the time.” question.”
They added that “a contrary conclusion would violate state and federal due process protections.”
In her legal filings, Doe detailed how she lived in Rochester, New York in 2000 before filming went to New York City. It was during this time that she befriended a limousine driver who escorted her to the party, a journey that took about 20 minutes.
During court proceedings, Spiro claimed that the 20-minute travel time effectively proved that the alleged incident could not have occurred in New York City, further discrediting the case sue. He also pointed out that the lawsuit was filed after the statute of limitations had expired, with any legal charges related to the targeted attack falling beyond the August 2021 deadline imposed by the New York Child Victims Act. York rules.
Tag Jay-Z