Sean “Diddy” Combs faces a new sexual assault lawsuit from 1991

Renowned rap mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is confronting a new lawsuit alleging sexual assault dating back to 1991. The plaintiff, Joi Dickerson-Neal, asserts that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by Mr. Combs at a Harlem restaurant where she worked. The legal action was filed just before the expiration of the New York Adult Survivors Act, allowing victims to sue after the statute of limitations has passed, on November 24.

Dickerson-Neal, who knew Combs through acquaintances and had appeared in one of his music videos, reluctantly agreed to meet him in January 1991. According to the complaint, she was drugged by the rapper, rendering her physically unable to stand or walk independently. Following the drugging, Combs allegedly sexually assaulted her at his residence, secretly filming the encounter and showing it to others. The lawsuit details the adverse impact on Dickerson-Neal’s life, leading to mental health struggles and college dropouts.

A spokesperson for Combs dismissed the allegations as “made up and not credible,” characterising the lawsuit as a “money grab.” This legal action follows a recent settlement in a sexual assault suit brought by R&B singer Cassie Ventura, a former partner of Mr. Combs. The representative reiterated that this latest lawsuit, filed by Dickerson-Neal, is an attempt to exploit the law for financial gain.

The lawsuit from Dickerson-Neal is the second sexual assault case brought against Combs this month. Cassie Ventura had accused the music mogul of rape and sex trafficking, alleging a decade-long pattern of abuse starting when she was 19. The two parties reached a settlement shortly after the lawsuit was filed, with Combs denying any wrongdoing.

Jonathan Goldhirsch, one of Dickerson-Neal’s lawyers, emphasised the enduring impact of the alleged harm and the pursuit of justice through the Adult Survivors Act. Meanwhile, Combs’ representative asserted that Dickerson-Neal’s account is fabricated and lacks credibility, framing the lawsuit as an exploitation of well-intentioned legal measures.