Apr 21, 2026

Combs v. NBCUniversal: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Over Documentary

N.Y. Sup. Ct. · Index No. 151935/2025 · Decision and Order Filed Apr. 20, 2026

In the matter of Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Peacock TV LLC and Ample, LLC, Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.), Justice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond has granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Sean “Diddy” Combs’s amended defamation complaint over the documentary Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy. The Decision and Order, filed Apr. 20, 2026, applies New York’s anti-SLAPP provisions, CPLR 3211(g) and Civil Rights Law § 76-a, and directs the defendants to apply for attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 142.) The order does not decide whether the accusations discussed in the film are true.

Background

Combs sued on Feb. 12, 2025, pleading one cause of action, defamation, and seeking at least $100 million. (ECF No. 2 at 16.) The amended complaint alleges that Ample, LLC produced the film and that NBCUniversal Media, LLC and its streaming service, Peacock TV LLC, broadcast it; and that the film became available on Peacock on Jan. 14, 2025, after a trailer released on Jan. 2. (ECF No. 56 ¶¶ 8–10, 23, 26.)

The amended complaint, filed Sept. 12, 2025, challenges three groups of statements. It alleges that the film falsely accuses Combs of murdering Kimberly Porter, Christopher “Biggie” Wallace, Andre Harrell and Dwight “Heavy D” Myers, and of attempting to murder Albert Joseph Brown, known as Al B. Sure!; that it falsely accuses him of sex with, and trafficking of, underage girls, on the word of an anonymous interviewee; and that an attorney, Ariel Mitchell, falsely said her client Courtney Burgess had “flash drives of sex tapes” that Combs secretly recorded and used for extortion. (ECF No. 56 ¶¶ 84, 115.) Combs alleges that the defendants acted with gross irresponsibility and actual malice. (Id. ¶¶ 121–122.) He has separately sued Burgess, Mitchell and Nexstar Media in federal court over Burgess’s claims about videos; see Dispatch 4.

Combs’s federal criminal case, United States v. Combs, appears in both the amended complaint and the order. The amended complaint alleges that, after an eight-week trial, a jury “acquitted Mr. Combs of the most serious charges,” finding him not guilty of sex trafficking and racketeering. (ECF No. 56 ¶ 19.) The order describes him as “a convicted felon serving a 50-month prison sentence” and refers to his conviction “on prostitution related charges.” (ECF No. 142 at 1, 9.)

The defendants were served in April 2025, and on Apr. 28 the parties agreed to defer their response until after the criminal trial. (ECF No. 6.) The defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint on July 18 (ECF Nos. 10–52). Combs then filed the amended complaint, which grew from 17 pages and 64 paragraphs to 32 pages and 122 paragraphs, and the parties stipulated to withdraw the first motion without prejudice; the court noted the withdrawal on Oct. 21. (ECF Nos. 56–58.) On Nov. 11, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under CPLR 3211(g) (ECF Nos. 59–107). Combs opposed on Jan. 26, 2026 (ECF Nos. 110–136), and the defendants replied on Mar. 18 (ECF No. 140). Argument, first set for Mar. 31, was held Apr. 17. (ECF Nos. 138, 142.) The day before, Combs’s lawyers wrote the court that the defendants had not disclosed a slide-deck demonstrative they planned to use, and asked for a final copy by 4:00 p.m. (ECF No. 141.)

The Decision

The order applies CPLR 3211(g) and Civil Rights Law § 76-a, which require dismissal of a suit that targets speech on public issues unless the plaintiff shows a “substantial basis” for it. (SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation.) The order calls this a “heightened burden” and defines it as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact.” (ECF No. 142 at 4.)

The court’s main holding is that the amended complaint “fails to establish Defendants were grossly irresponsible in publishing the Documentary.” (Id. at 5.) That New York standard requires a private plaintiff suing a media organization to show that the publisher acted in a grossly irresponsible manner, without due consideration for the standards of information gathering that responsible publishers ordinarily follow. (Id.) The order acknowledges that Combs is “obviously not a private plaintiff,” but says that failing this test means he “de facto fails to meet the higher burden of alleging actual malice” (knowing a statement is false, or recklessly disregarding whether it is). (Id. at 5 n.2.)

The order says the defendants “employed far greater verification methods than the defendants in prior cases where the First Department found dismissal appropriate.” (Id. at 6.) It points to their outreach to Combs for comment, the film’s inclusion of his attorneys’ denials, its disclosure of the coroner’s findings on Porter’s death, and its disclosure of interviewees’ possible biases. (Id. at 6–8.) It concludes that the film shows “a carefully curated and nuanced approach which discloses interviewees’ biases and includes counterstatements to the allegedly defamatory statements,” and that a claim that published information is false “does not mean that Defendants were grossly irresponsible in publishing that information.” (Id. at 8.)

The order also takes up, “for the sake of completeness,” the defendants’ argument under the “incremental harm” and “libel-proof plaintiff” doctrines, which ask whether a statement added harm to a reputation already damaged. It finds it “inconceivable as to how the Documentary created additional damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, which was already tarnished by the numerous lawsuits, domestic violence video, press coverage, and a criminal indictment prior to the Documentary’s publication,” and cites Combs’s statement at sentencing describing his publicized actions as “disgusting, shameful and sick.” (Id. at 9–10.)

The order separately holds that dismissal of the claims about “non-consensual sexual videos, extortion, and sex with minors” is “also warranted” under Civil Rights Law § 74, which protects a “fair and true report” of a judicial proceeding. (Id. at 10.) The film, it says, “reported extensively on Court proceedings,” including suits by Rodney Jones and Cassie Ventura, and Combs “proffers no argument that the Documentary’s reporting of the substance of the allegations was somehow inaccurate.” (Id. at 11.) It does not apply § 74 to the statements about deaths.

Combs’s alternative request for discovery under CPLR 3211(g)(3) is denied, in part because he gave no sworn statement of the discovery he needed: “All that was submitted was an affirmation from Plaintiff’s attorney, which is hearsay and devoid of any evidentiary or probative value.” (Id. at 12.)

The order states that the motion “is granted, and the Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed.” It does not say whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, that is, whether the claim may be brought again. It directs the defendants to file, within 30 days of entry, “their fee application pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70-a,” the anti-SLAPP law’s fee-shifting provision. (Id. at 12.)

The Other Side

Combs argued in opposition that the film’s statements are not protected opinion, are false and defamatory per se (harmful on their face, so that no special harm need be shown), are not privileged reports of legal proceedings, and were published with gross irresponsibility because the film was rushed and relied on biased or unreliable sources; alternatively, he asked for discovery. (ECF No. 110, Points I–VII; see ECF No. 142 at 3.) In an affirmation filed with the opposition, he states that he was not involved in the deaths of Porter, Harrell or Myers or in the murder of Wallace, that he did not attempt to kill Brown, that he did not have sex with or traffic underage girls “as alleged by the anonymous interviewee,” and that he has “never used sex tapes as a means to extort or influence anyone.” (ECF No. 111 ¶¶ 1–7.)

The defendants argued that the film “meticulously includes context, including facts that rebut or cast doubt on those allegations, along with Combs’s own denials.” (ECF No. 60 at 1.)

After the Decision

Justice Perry-Bond announced the ruling from the bench at the close of the Apr. 17 argument and said the defendants “are entitled to fees under Civil Rights Law Section 70-A.” (ECF No. 151, Tr. 105.) The defendants filed notice of entry of the written order on Apr. 20. (ECF No. 143.) On May 18, Combs filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department, from “each and every part of the Decision and Order.” (ECF No. 144.) His fee-motion brief gives the appeal number as 2026-03017. (ECF No. 157 at 1.)

On May 20, the defendants moved for fees under § 70-a, seeking $927,448 for 777.5 hours of work by six Gibson Dunn lawyers at hourly rates from $915 to $1,980. (ECF No. 149 ¶¶ 5, 7, 12.) Combs opposed on July 6. His brief states that the order “was wrongly decided,” asks the court to “abstain from ruling on Defendants’ fee request until the First Department has ruled on Plaintiff’s appeal,” and argues that, if the court reaches the request, a reasonable fee is “no more than $166,769.25.” (ECF No. 157 at 1.) The defendants replied on Aug. 5. They argue that New York courts award fees for time spent on the fee application itself, and they raised their request by $62,844, to $990,292. (ECF No. 162 at 2; ECF No. 163 ¶ 6.) No ruling on the fee request appears on the docket.

On Sept. 18, Sher Tremonte LLP, Combs’s counsel, moved by proposed order to show cause to withdraw as his lawyers in this case. Michael Tremonte’s supporting affirmation states that Combs “deliberately disregarded his obligation to pay Sher Tremonte’s legal fees and expenses” and that there has been “a total breakdown in cooperation and communication.” (ECF No. 167 ¶¶ 4–5.) Justice Perry-Bond signed the order to show cause on Sept. 21. The signed copy carries handwritten dates that read Oct. 16 for answering papers and Oct. 23 for the return date, and the notation “Submission only - no appearance on return date.” (ECF No. 168.) The firm has made similar applications in Combs’s other cases; see Dispatch 1 and Dispatch 5.

Counsel and Sources

Sean Combs is represented by Michael Tremonte, Erica A. Wolff and Benjamin J. Shack Sackler of Sher Tremonte LLP, which has moved to withdraw. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Peacock TV LLC and Ample, LLC are represented by Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Katie Townsend and Connor S. Sullivan of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Source: ECF Nos. 2, 6, 56–58, 60, 110, 111, 138, 141–144, 149, 151, 157, 162, 163 and 166–168 on the Combs v. NBCUniversal docket.

Diddy Docket reports on public court records. Parties are presumed innocent or not liable unless proven otherwise. This is not legal advice.

Related cases

151935/2025

Sourcing

p. 1 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 1 -- "a convicted felon serving a 50-month prison sentence"
p. 3 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 3 -- "In opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute that the heightened burden under CPLR 3211(g) applies but argues he set forth a substantial basis for his claims."
p. 4 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 4 -- "The “substantial basis” standard is a “heightened burden” compared to the pleading standard ... “Substantial basis” means “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact”"
p. 5 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 5 -- "Viewing the Documentary holistically, the Amended Complaint fails to establish Defendants were grossly irresponsible in publishing the Documentary. ... the publisher “acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties”"
p. 5 n.2 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 5 n.2 -- "Plaintiff is obviously not a private plaintiff. However, if Plaintiff fails to meet the “gross irresponsibility” standard, he de facto fails to meet the higher burden of alleging actual malice."
p. 6 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 6 -- "Defendants employed far greater verification methods than the defendants in prior cases where the First Department found dismissal appropriate ... Defendants reached out to Plaintiff for comment and included in the Documentary Plaintiff’s attorneys’ comments that Plaintiff “has never sexually assaulted anyone - adult or minor, man or woman.”"
p. 6 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 6 -- "In response to certain interviewees’ allegations that Plaintiff was involved in the death of Kim Porter, Defendants disclosed the coroner’s report which objectively found Ms. Porter died from lobar pneumonia"
p. 7 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 7 -- "Defendants also published the biases of interviewees who accused Plaintiff of murder."
p. 8 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 8 -- "the Documentary demonstrates a carefully curated and nuanced approach which discloses interviewees’ biases and includes counterstatements to the allegedly defamatory statements ... does not mean that Defendants were grossly irresponsible in publishing that information"
p. 9 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 9 -- "for the sake of completeness the Court assesses the merits of Defendant’s argument under the libel proof plaintiff doctrine ... his conviction on prostitution related charges, Plaintiff admitted he viewed his own publicized actions ... as “disgusting, shameful and sick.”"
p. 10 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 10 -- "It is inconceivable as to how the Documentary created additional damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, which was already tarnished by the numerous lawsuits, domestic violence video, press coverage, and a criminal indictment prior to the Documentary’s publication ... Dismissal of the claims regarding non-consensual sexual videos, extortion, and sex with minors is also warranted under Civil Rights Law § 74."
p. 11 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 11 -- "The Documentary reported extensively on Court proceedings ... he proffers no argument that the Documentary’s reporting of the substance of the allegations was somehow inaccurate. ... the nuance and breadth of views presented in the Documentary in and of itself forecloses any finding that the publication of the Documentary was grossly irresponsible."
p. 12 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 12 -- "All that was submitted was an affirmation from Plaintiff’s attorney, which is hearsay and devoid of any evidentiary or probative value ... ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(g) is granted, and the Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed; ... ORDERED that within thirty days of entry, Defendants shall file their fee application pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70-a"
p. 12 n.4 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 12 n.4 -- "Plaintiff provided an affidavit but not related to discovery. The affidavit only contains conclusory denials of the substance of the allegedly defamatory statements."
p. 12 — Decision and Order on Motion No. 002 (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 142), p. 12 -- "[Form checkboxes: “CASE DISPOSED” and “GRANTED” marked; “NON-FINAL DISPOSITION” blank. Signed and dated 4/20/26. The order does not contain the words “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”]"
p. 16 — Complaint, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Feb. 12, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2), p. 16 -- "Awarding Plaintiff money damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $100,000,000.00"
¶¶ 8-10 — Amended Complaint, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 12, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56) -- "NBCUniversal Media, LLC owns and operates PEACOCK TV LLC, through which NBCUniversal Media, LLC was responsible for broadcasting the Documentary. ... AMPLE, LLC d/b/a Ample Entertainment is a production company based in Culver City, California ... Ample is the production company that was responsible for producing the Documentary."
¶ 19 — Amended Complaint, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 12, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56) -- "a jury acquitted Mr. Combs of the most serious charges levelled against him, finding him not guilty of sex trafficking and not guilty of racketeering"
¶¶ 23, 26 — Amended Complaint, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 12, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56) -- "on January 2, 2025, Defendants Ample and NBCU released a trailer for the Documentary ... On January 14, 2025, NBCU made the Documentary publicly available for viewing on the Peacock streaming platform."
¶ 84 — Amended Complaint, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 12, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56) -- "an attorney, Ariel Mitchell, that her client, Courtney Burgess, possesses “flash drives of sex tapes” with celebrities that Mr. Combs secretly recorded and used for extortion"
¶ 115 — Amended Complaint, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 12, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56) -- "a. That Plaintiff murdered Kimberly Porter, Biggie, Andre Harrell, and Heavy D, and attempted to murder Al B. Sure; b. That Plaintiff had sex with and was sex trafficking underage girls; and c. That Courtney Burgess was in possession of flash drives of sex tapes Plaintiff had secretly recorded and used for purposes of extortion."
¶¶ 121-122 — Amended Complaint, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 12, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 56) -- "Defendants acted in a grossly irresponsible and reckless manner ... Defendants published the defamatory statements with actual malice"
p. 2 — Stipulation Regarding Withdrawal of Motion Without Prejudice, Briefing Schedule and Discovery, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 18, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 57), p. 2 -- "extending the Complaint from 17 pages and 64 paragraphs to 32 pages and 122 paragraphs ... Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 10–51) (Motion Sequence No. 001) and accompanying Request for Judicial Notice (NYSCEF Doc. No. 52) are withdrawn"
p. 1 — Stipulation Regarding Briefing Schedule and Discovery, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 28, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 6), p. 1 -- "Defendants NBCUniversal Media, LLC and Peacock TV LLC were served on April 10, 2025 and Defendant Ample, LLC was served on April 17, 2025 ... the Parties have agreed to defer Defendants’ response to the Complaint until after the conclusion of Plaintiff’s criminal trial"
ECF No. 138 — Joint letter regarding adjournment of oral argument, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 9, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 138) -- "the oral argument scheduled for March 31, 2026 regarding the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint"
p. 1 — Letter regarding Defendants' planned demonstrative, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 16, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 141), p. 1 -- "Court order Defendants to provide a final copy of the demonstrative to Plaintiff’s counsel immediately and, in no event later than 4:00 P.M. today (April 16, 2026)"
p. 1 — Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Nov. 11, 2025) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 60), p. 1 -- "the Documentary meticulously includes context, including facts that rebut or cast doubt on those allegations, along with Combs’s own denials"
¶¶ 1-7 — Affirmation of Sean Combs in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Jan. 26, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 111) -- "I was not involved in the death of Kimberly Porter. ... I did not have sex with, or sex traffic, underage girls as alleged by the anonymous interviewee in the documentary at issue in this matter. ... I have never used sex tapes as a means to extort or influence anyone."
Points I-VII — Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Jan. 26, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 110) -- "THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT PROTECTED OPINION ... NONE OF THE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE ... THE CHALLENGED STATEMENTS ARE NOT PRIVILEGED ... DEFENDANTS WERE GROSSLY IRRESPONSIBLE ... ALTERNATIVELY, PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY"
pp. 104-105 — Transcript of Motion to Dismiss Hearing (Apr. 17, 2026), Exhibit 2 to the Sullivan Affirmation, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. May 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 151), pp. 104-105 -- "Because defendants have succeeded on their ... motion to dismiss, the defendants are entitled to fees under Civil Rights Law Section 70-A."
ECF No. 143 — Notice of Entry, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Apr. 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 143) -- "Notice of Entry ... signed by Justice Phaedra F. Perry-Bond on April 20, 2026, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(g), and entered in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, on April 20, 2026."
p. 1 — Notice of Appeal, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. May 18, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 144), p. 1 -- "Plaintiff Sean Combs appeals each and every part of the Decision and Order."
¶¶ 5, 7, 12 — Affirmation of Connor S. Sullivan in Support of Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. May 20, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 149) -- "Defendants are seeking through this motion an award of $927,448 ... a total of 777.5 attorney hours ... [rate table: Theodore Boutrous $1,980; ... Elise Blegen $915]"
p. 1 — Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. July 6, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 157), p. 1 -- "Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court’s Decision and Order ... was wrongly decided ... Plaintiff has appealed the Order to the First Department. NYSCEF No. 144; Case No. 2026-03017. Therefore, this Court should abstain from ruling on Defendants’ fee request until the First Department has ruled on Plaintiff’s appeal ... a reasonable fee for Gibson Dunn’s work on this matter is no more than $166,769.25."
p. 2 — Memorandum of Law in Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 5, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 162), p. 2 -- "multiple New York decisions award “fees on fees”"
¶ 6 — Supplemental Affirmation of Connor S. Sullivan in Support of Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 5, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 163) -- "Defendants request an award of $62,844 for work performed from July 6, 2026 to August 5, 2026 ... When combined with the $927,448 requested through May 20, 2026, this yields $990,292."
¶¶ 4-5 — Affirmation of Michael Tremonte in Support of Motion to Withdraw, Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 18, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 167) -- "Mr. Combs has deliberately disregarded his obligation to pay Sher Tremonte’s legal fees and expenses. ... there has been a total breakdown in cooperation and communication between Mr. Combs and Sher Tremonte."
pp. 1-2 — Order to Show Cause re: Withdrawal of Counsel, as signed (Perry-Bond, J.), Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC et al., Index No. 151935/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Sept. 21, 2026) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 168), pp. 1-2 -- "[Handwritten on the signed order, read from a 250-dpi render, not machine-checkable: return date “10-23”; answering papers “10-16”; “Submission only - no appearance on return date”; signed and dated 9-21-2026. Paragraph staying the case is struck through and overwritten by hand; not characterised.]"

← All Dispatches