JAY-Z’s Accuser Withdraws Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Him & Diddy 🚫

An unnamed woman who initiated a lawsuit against JAY-Z and Diddy claiming she was sexually assaulted at the age of 13 has withdrawn her lawsuit, USA TODAY reports.

Reports indicate that a notice of voluntary dismissal was submitted in New York federal court, and Jane Doe dismissed the case “with prejudice,” which means it cannot be filed again in the future. The lawsuit was filed by Tony Buzbee.

JAY-Z took to Instagram to celebrate his legal win and asserted his innocence.

The baseless, fictitious, and shocking allegations have been dismissed. This civil lawsuit was without merit and was never going to succeed. The fabricated story they concocted was ridiculous, if not for the gravity of the accusations. I wouldn’t wish this kind of ordeal on anyone,” JAY-Z stated.

“The pain that my wife, my children, and I have suffered will never be overlooked. This 1-800 lawyer can file a suit under the protection of Jane Doe, and when they quickly understand that their money grab is futile, they simply walk away without any consequences. The system has failed,” he continued in his post. “While the court must protect victims, it also has an ethical duty to safeguard the innocent from groundless accusations. May truth triumph for all victims and for those who are falsely accused as well.”

Alex Spiro, JAY-Z’s attorney, also released a statement on the dismissal of the lawsuit.

“The unfounded case against JAY-Z, which should have never been filed, has been dismissed with prejudice,” Spiro stated. “By standing firm against heinous and false accusations, Jay has accomplished what few can – he fought back, he never settled, he never paid a single penny, he prevailed and cleared his name.”

A Jane Doe initially filed the case against Combs in October. Jay-Z’s name was added to the suit two months later. She claimed that Combs and Jay-Z raped her in 2000 after taking her to an MTV Music Video Awards afterparty.

In December, JAY-Z attempted to have the case dismissed and sought to have Jane Doe’s identity revealed—both of these requests were denied by the court.

“The plaintiff claims a violation of the GMV Law for actions allegedly occurring in September 2000,” stated the legal motion. “However, the GMV Law was enacted on December 19, 2000, three months after the events described in the First Amended Complaint, and cannot apply retroactively to create a cause of action that was not available to the Plaintiff at that time.”