Doe v. Combs: Plaintiff Files Notice Dismissing Case With Prejudice

In the matter of Doe v. Combs et al., No. 1:24-cv-07776 (S.D.N.Y.), plaintiff John Doe, through attorney Antigone Curis of Curis Law, PLLC, filed a notice on Nov. 12, 2026 stating that the action “is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice” (ECF No. 79 at 1). The notice invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which lets a plaintiff dismiss a case by notice, without a court order, before the defendants answer or move for summary judgment. A dismissal with prejudice generally bars the plaintiff from bringing the same claims again.

Background

Doe sued on Oct. 14, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case is assigned to United States District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. The defendants are Sean “Diddy” Combs, Daddy’s House Recordings Inc., CE OPCO, LLC (doing business as Combs Global and formerly Combs Enterprises LLC), Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Productions Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Books Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Records LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Productions LLC and unnamed organizational defendants (ECF No. 1 at 1).

The complaint “seeks compensatory and punitive damages for a violent sexual assault” that it alleges occurred at a “white party” at Combs’s residence in New York (ECF No. 1 at 1). It alleges that in 2006 Doe “was employed by a security firm, MASS Security,” and in August of that year accepted “a last-minute job at Combs’ East Hampton property” (ECF No. 1 at 14). Its first cause of action is brought under the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act (ECF No. 1 at 16). The allegations are unproven.

The docket shows that on Apr. 9, 2025, the court denied Doe’s motion to proceed anonymously and directed Doe to file a complaint in Doe’s own name by Apr. 23, 2025 (ECF No. 62). Doe filed a notice of interlocutory appeal on Apr. 23, 2025 (ECF No. 68), and on Apr. 24, 2025 the court stayed the case pending the Second Circuit’s resolution of the appeals (ECF No. 69). The docket shows a mandate from the Second Circuit on Apr. 10, 2026 (ECF No. 70).

The Notice

The notice is a two-page filing. It states that Doe’s counsel “have discussed this matter with counsel who acknowledge and consent to this submission” (ECF No. 79 at 1). It does not name the counsel who consented, give a reason for the dismissal, or describe any terms.

The Pending Motion to Withdraw

Before the notice, Sher Tremonte LLP had moved to withdraw as counsel for the defendants and for a retaining lien, meaning a lien on the file for unpaid fees and expenses (ECF Nos. 74–75). On Oct. 23, 2026, Judge Buchwald signed an order directing the defendants to show cause by Nov. 23, 2026 why that relief should not be granted (ECF No. 77 at 2). The docket shows no ruling on the motion.

What’s Next

The docket shows no order on the notice and no entry closing the case. The order to show cause sets Nov. 23, 2026 as the defendants’ response date on the withdrawal motion (ECF No. 77 at 2).

Counsel and Sources

Counsel: Antigone Curis, Curis Law, PLLC, for Plaintiff John Doe. Mark Cuccaro, Sher Tremonte LLP, for Defendants. Sources: ECF Nos. 1, 62, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 77 and 79 on the No. 1:24-cv-07776 docket.

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