Mega Edition: Diddy Moves To Dismiss The Lawsuit Filed By Thalia Graves (Part 1-2) (3/27/26)

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to ChambaCasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group.

Boy, we're prohibited by law.

CTNCs, 21 plus sponsored by ChambaCasino.

What's up, everyone?

And welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries.

In this episode, we're going to flip the script a bit,

and we're going to dive back into the civil cases,

and we're going to take a look at Diddy's newest memorandum

of law in support of his motion to dismiss the amended

complaint filed by Talia Graves.

Case number 1, 24-cv-07201-AT.

Talia Graves plaintiff for Sean, Combs, and Joseph Sherman,

the defendants.

This memorandum of law is respectfully submitted

on behalf of defendant Sean Combs in support

of his motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure,

12b6, for an order dismissing with prejudice

the amended complaint, AC-ECF number 47, as to him.

Preliminary statement.

This action is based on allegations

relating to a single encounter that

reportedly occurred nearly 24 years ago

in or about the summer of 2001.

Plaintiff, Talia Graves, plaintiff, falsely claims

that Mr. Combs and defendant Joseph Sherman and together

defendants use the pretense of speaking with her in person

about her boyfriend's employment with one of Mr. Combs

entities to sexually assault her and record themselves

on a handheld camera doing so.

Although plaintiff reports to recall,

many details from the alleged assault she does not allege

that she witnessed the purported encounter being recorded

nor does she allege that she has ever seen such a recording.

Rather, she claims that 22 years later, in November of 2023,

following a much publicized settlement of claims

against Mr. Combs by his ex-girlfriend,

her ex-boyfriend told her that he had seen a video of her

alleged assault decades earlier.

Since plaintiff commenced this action and made those allegations,

that same ex-boyfriend has stated publicly

that plaintiff tried to bribe him with $3 million

to corroborate her story.

Relying on these implausible allegations,

plaintiff brings three claims against Mr. Combs

and Sherman, all of which fell.

First, plaintiff, claim pursuant to New York City's victims

of gender, motivated violence, protection law,

must be dismissed with prejudice because it's time-barred,

and any purported revival of the decades-old claim is preempted.

Plaintiff alleges she was assaulted in 2001.

The GMVL statute of limitations is seven years,

meaning plaintiffs claim expired in 2008

at the latest 16 years before she filed this lawsuit.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention,

a recent amendment reporting to create a two-year revival

window for expired GMVL claims,

the GMVL revival provision does not save plaintiff's decades-old

claim because as other decisions in this district have held,

New York State law, which creates a comprehensive statutory scheme

that occupies the field of revived sexual assault claims

and that directly conflicts with the city's GMVL revival

provision, and it preempts the GMVL revival provision.

Second, plaintiff claims under the New York City

in New York State Revenge porn statutes must be dismissed

because they are time-barred.

The amended complaint alleges the reported video was filmed

and disseminated in 2001.

Given that both Revenge porn statutes have a three-year statute

of limitation, plaintiff's claims expired in 2004,

20 years before she filed this action.

Finally, plaintiff's claims under the New York City

in New York State Revenge porn statutes fell

because among other things her allegations are implausible

and conclusory.

The amended complaint impermissibly lumps both defendants

together, making accusations as serious misconduct

and connection with a purported dissemination

of a purported rape tape without identifying any details

of the circumstances in which Mr. Combs

purportedly disseminated such a tape with intent

to harm plaintiff and instead vaguely and conclusively

alleges that both defendants engaged in such conduct

for decades, even though plaintiff concedes

she never saw a tape and pleads no details

about its length, contents, whereabouts,

or any subsequent instances of publication.

The New York Appellate Division, first apartment,

has held a plaintiff, like plaintiff here,

who conceitedly has no first-hand knowledge

that any intimate visual media even exists, let alone

when it was disseminated with the intent

of the harm and harassor, cannot maintain

a revenge porn claim.

This is inconsistent with the well-settled law

in the Second Circuit, which precludes claims

like plaintiffs claim here, premised on formulaic

recitations of the elements of a cause of action

without identifying facts that support

plaintiff's far-fetched conclusions.

The factual background.

In the amended complaint, plaintiff claims

that nearly 24 years ago, in or about the summer of 2001,

Mr. Combs by then, already a prominent rapper,

record executive, and businessman,

who was a notable figure in the music

and entertainment industry, called plaintiff,

who was not in any way affiliated with Mr. Combs' business

so that they could meet, in person,

to discuss her boyfriend's employment at Bad Boy.

Mr. Combs then allegedly drove out to Queens with Sherman,

picked up plaintiff, and drove her back

to the music studio in Manhattan.

Plaintiff claims falsely that when she,

Mr. Combs and Sherman arrived at the studio,

Mr. Combs and Sherman raped her.

She further accuses both defendants of video recording

the purported assaults, though she does not alleged

she witnessed any such recordings being made at the time,

or that she has ever seen any such recording.

To the contrary, plaintiff alleges that she learned

about the purported recording 22 years after the fact,

when the November 2023, her ex-boyfriend allegedly confessed

that year is earlier, he and others had viewed such a tape,

idea five, and 45 through 46.

While she vaguely asserts that Mr. Combs and Sherman

continue to show the video over the years,

and through to the present, and or sold the video,

she does not alleged any dates, approximate,

or otherwise, when such distribution or sell occurred,

nor does she identify any information supporting or belief

that any such video was circulated through the present or ever.

Although plaintiff pleads that her ex-boyfriend informed her

about the alleged recording decades after the fact,

because he was inspired by the resolution

of a completely separate lawsuit against Mr. Combs,

that same ex-boyfriend has publicly discredited this narrative,

revealing plaintiff, offered to pay him $3 million,

presumably from the proceeds she expects to recover

in this lawsuit.

To corroborate her allegations against Mr. Combs, whom,

she said she was suing, because he's the one that has the money.

Legal standard.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint

must contain sufficient factual matter,

the accepted is true to state of claim,

to relief that is plausible on its face.

Ashcroff or Zick Ball, 556 US 662 2009,

quoting Bell Atlantic Company, First Wombly 500 US 2007.

A claim has plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content

that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,

for as part pictures,

for its universal television network,

683 Second Circuit 2012.

It's not enough to assert mere labels and conclusions

and formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

will not do.

Bell Atlantic Corporation 550 at 555,

while a court must accept is true

a well pleaded factual allegation in the complaint

and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor,

C Chambers, Vers Time Warner, Second Circuit 2002.

A court is not required to credit

conclusion allegations unsupported by facts

or to suspend common sense in conducting its analysis,

A.J. Energy LLC, Vers Warry Bank.

Number 18, CV 3735, J.M.F. 2019, W.L. 4688629

at 3 SDNY 2019.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing,

another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Chamba.

Jump in at chambacasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, B.T.W. Cooke.

Boy, we're prohibited by law.

CCNC, 21 plus sponsored by Chamba Casino.

The argument, one, plaintiffs GMVL claim must be dismissed

because it's time barred and any reported revival is preempted.

The court must dismiss plaintiffs GMVL claim with prejudice

because it's statute of limitations as long since run

and the revival window on which plaintiffs seeks to rely

is preempted by state law.

A.Paintiffs GMVL claim is time barred.

As relevant here, the GMVL carries a seven-year statute

of limitations and Y.C. Admin Code, section 10-1105A.

Plaintiffs GMVL claim rests on conduct

that allegedly occurred more than two decades ago in 2001.

C.A.C. One, pleading that the alleged events occurred

in or around the summer of 2001, as such the statute of limitations

on plaintiffs GMVL claim expired in 2008 at the latest.

Because she did not bring her claim until 2024,

her claim is unquestionably time barred

and must be dismissed with prejudice

and Y.C. Admin Code, section 10-1105.

Dover State University of New York Purchase College, 617-F-DOT-S-U-P-P-S-D-N-Y-2022.

Explaining a motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations

is properly brought pursuant to Rule 12B6 and dismissing action

as time barred.

All right, we're going to wrap up right here,

and in the next episode we're going to pick up where we left off.

All of the information that goes with this episode can be found

in the description box.

What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries.

In this episode we're going to pick up where we left off with Diddy's motion

to dismiss the amended lawsuit filed against them by Talia Graves.

B. New York State law preempts the GMVL's reported revival window.

plaintiffs attempt to save her time barred claim by relying on the 2022 GMVL

amendment AC65, which reports to create a two-year revival window

for expired GMVL claims, fails because this New York City revival provision

is preempted by New York State law.

The doctrine of preemption acts as a significant restriction

on the home rule powers of municipalities.

Local laws may be inconsistent with and preempted by state law

either because legislature has occupied the relevant field

of regulation, i.e. field preemption or because the local law

conflicts with state law, i.e. conflict preemption.

Police benevolent association of the city of New York

incorporated for a city of New York.

423-2023 both preemption doctrines apply here.

In January 2022, the New York City Council amended the GMVL

by creating a two-year window spanning from March 1, 2023

through March 1, 2025 for the revival of claims

that were otherwise time-barred under the law, the GMVL revival provision.

NYC admin section 10-1105, as Judge Kaplan has now held twice, New York State's

Child Victims Act of 2019, the CVA, and Adult Survivors Act of 2022,

the ASA preempted that revival window on both field preemption

and conflict preemption grounds, Parker vs. Alexander 24-CV-4813-LAK,

2-4-SDNY January 22, 2025,

Balino vs. Tolerico, number 24-CV-0712

at 1-SDNY February 21, 2024.

The court should hold the same.

1. The CVA and the ASA occupy the field of revival

of sexual offense-related claims, including GMVL claims.

Field preemption exists where the legislature

enacts a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme

in a particular area, Albany Area Builders Association

vs. Town of Gilderlin, 74, NY to D-372, 377, 1989.

Such preemption may be expressed or implicit,

DJL Rescorp vs. City of New York, 96, NY to D-91, 95, 2001.

Implicit preemption occurs when the state legislature

enacts such a complete regulatory scheme, such that the local government

is precluded from legislating on the same subject matter

unless it has received clear and explicit authority to the contrary.

The state's intent to occupy a field may be implied

from the nature of the subject matter being regulated

and the purpose and scope of the state's legislative scheme,

including the need for statewide uniformity in a given area,

Albany Area Builders Association 74,

NY to D-377.

Through its enactment of the CVA in 2019 and the ASA in 2022,

the New York State legislature implied the occupied the entire field

of claim revival for certain sexual offense-related claims,

including that alleged by plaintiff.

Specifically, the CVA and the ASA apply to every civil claim or cause of action

brought against any party, alleging intentional, or negligent acts,

or omissions by a person for physical, psychological,

or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would

constitute a sexual offense, as defined an article 130

of the New York Penal Code committed against a child or an adult victim respectively.

CPLR Section 214G 214J,

emphasis added. The CVA and the ASA each explicitly applies

notwithstanding any provision of law, which imposes a period of limitation

to the contrary, CPLR Section 214G 214J.

Both statutory revival windows closed prior to plaintiff's commencement

of this litigation, the CVA's to your window closed on August 14, 2021,

and the ASA's one-year window closed on November 24, 2023.

Boy Scouts of America 21CV4714 2021 EDNY September 24, 2021

Considering these provisions, Judge Kaplan concluded that the CVA and ASA

are comprehensive and detailed, and therefore,

events legislative intent to occupy the entire field of revival of civil claims,

arising from violations of state, sexual offense, penal statutes,

like the GMVL revival provision to the extent that they report to revive the same

category of claims, Parker 2025WL at two. Additional measures, which Judge Kaplan

did not explicitly consider, lend further support to his conclusions that the ASA

and CVA constitute a detailed comprehensive regulatory scheme. For example,

the state legislature instructed the chief administrator of the courts to promulgate rules

for adjudicating revived actions brought pursuant to the CVA and ASA.

The state court in turn implemented a comprehensive infrastructure for litigating CVA and ASA cases,

including the passage of uniform rule 202.72 entitled actions revived pursuant to CPLR214G,

which created a dedicated part of the New York Supreme Court in each judicial district

to hear CVA cases, mandated training of justices, hearing officers, and ADR neutrals

in subject related to sexual assault, and recommended a uniform schedule for pre-child proceedings

in such cases, with specified timeframes and intervals for pre-liminary conferences,

status conferences, discovery completion, dispositive motions, and trials, and led to the

issuance of global case management orders governing the administration of all such cases.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah, it's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to ChambaCasino.com Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary,

VTW Group, voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 Plus, sponsored by ChambaCasino.

As Judge Kaplan explained in holding that the statutory scheme created by the CVA and the ASA

together preempt the GMVL Revival Window, the sequence of enactments confirms the legislatures

intent to occupy the field. Parker 2025 WL268-436 at 3.

The GMVL Revival provision was passed four months before the ASA was passed. If the state wanted

to carve GMVL Revival claims out of the ASA's ambit, it could have, but it did not. Instead,

the legislature directed that the ASA applied a every-civil claim or cause of action brought

by adult victims of sexual offense pursuant to Article 130 of the New York Penal Code.

Notwithstanding any provision of law, which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary?

The legislature could have stated that the ASA applies notwithstanding any more restrictive

limitations period, but it did not. As part of his decision, holding that field preemption

applies, Judge Kaplan addressed directly Judge Clarks somewhat inconsistent holding in Dover's

Black 23-CV 6418-SDNY September 27, 2024, which was incorporated by reference by Judge Clark

in Dover's Colms, 23-CV 106-28 JGLC, SDNY December 5, 2024, Parker 2025 WL 268-436 at 4.

Judge Kaplan identified two main reasons why he respectfully disagrees with Black's holding

that the CVA was not sufficiently comprehensive and detailed to warn field preemption.

First in Black the court addressed whether only the CVA standing alone without ASA preempts

a GMVL revival window. By ignoring the ASA, Black fell to appreciate the full scope of the regulatory

scheme. Second Judge Clark incorrectly minimized the CVA's scope by comparing it to other regulatory

schemes she said were more comprehensive, but Judge Kaplan points out that those

comparator schemes are simply more complex, not more comprehensive. The only court to squarely

address the precise issue presented here that is whether claims brought pursuant to the GMVL

revival provision are preempted by the ASA and in particular the ASA taken together with the CVA

has confirmed twice that they are. To the extent the reasoning in Black, those holding is limited

to CVA can flex with that conclusion Parker has a better of the argument and the court should

similarly hold that ASA and CVA preempt the GMVL revival provision on field preemption grounds.

CEG Child Victims Act NYC litigation Supreme Court Bronx Kings New York Queens and Richmond

Counties Case Management Order Number 1

All right folks we're in a wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up

where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description

box. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate

with Chamba. Jump in at ChambaCasino.com. Let's Chamba. No purchase necessary, BGW Group,

voidware prohibited by Maw, CCNC, 21 Plus, sponsored by ChambaCasino.