Jay-Z dismissal motion

Jay-Z is set to file a dismissal motion in the sexual assault lawsuit levied against him by a Jane Doe plaintiff. Photo Credit: Jay-Z by Mikael ‘Mike’ Väisänen

On the heels of several twists and turns, the court has approved Jay-Z’s request to seek the dismissal of a rape lawsuit filed against him by a Jane Doe plaintiff.

This newest development in the ugly and much-publicized legal battle arrived in the form of a brief court order, which itself followed a pair of related letters to the presiding judge.

Multiple headlines later, many are well aware of the high-stakes complaint, which, among other things, accuses Jay-Z of sexually assaulting the now-adult plaintiff when she was 13 years old.

Thus far, the Roc Nation founder has pushed back against the action tooth and nail – including by refuting the underlying allegations and by unsuccessfully attempting to reveal the accuser’s identity.

Then, against the backdrop of a sub-dispute with the aforementioned Buzbee (who’s repping over 200 alleged Diddy victims), Jay-Z was officially served with the suit last month.

Arguing that the action is time-barred in one of the mentioned letters to the court, 55-year-old Jay-Z is set to levy a formal dismissal motion targeting the lawsuit.

Keeping the focus on Jay-Z’s letter, the plaintiff cannot receive relief for her lone claim under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act because the law was enacted in late 2000 – “three months after” the alleged “conduct occurred,” according to the text.

Shifting to Buzbee’s retort on behalf of the accuser, Jay-Z’s argument here “is unpersuasive, as it is contrary to the law’s primary intention: to make it easier for victims of gender-motivated violence to seek civil remedies,” per the letter.

Next, regarding the arguments Jay-Z will explore in a formal dismissal motion, even if that law could be applied to the alleged conduct, the latter would need to have taken place in New York City itself, the defendant’s submission explains in more words.

Bearing in mind the amended complaint’s description of where the alleged sexual assault occurred – a “large white residence” reached after a 20-minute drive from the Big Apple’s Radio City Music Hall – this structure would have allegedly “been located outside the territorial boundaries of New York City,” according to Jay-Z.

“As Defendant seeks to rely on evidence outside of the pleadings,” Buzbee’s response reads, “which would transform a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment, and as discovery it [sic] not yet underway, it is respectfully submitted that Defendant’s proposed motion is procedurally improper and should be denied.”

Lastly, Jay-Z also maintains that the suit is time-barred under New York’s Child Victims Act – though the seemingly unbothered Buzbee believes that the court previously “rejected the very same argument” in Doe v. Black.

Not hesitating to make a decision, the court has sided with Jay-Z and his counsel, who have until February 6th to file the dismissal motion. The alleged victim will then have until the 28th to submit her opposition papers, with Jay-Z’s reply (if any) due by March 14th, the order, dated today, shows.