DiddyDocket Dispatch
Seven Güzel v. Combs et al.
New York Supreme Court No. 152568/2025 Justice Leslie A. Stroth
Sep 20, 2026

Güzel v. Combs: Judge Declines to Sign Sher Tremonte's Order to Show Cause on Withdrawal

N.Y. Sup. Ct. · Index No. 152568/2025 · Order to Show Cause Declined Sept. 16, 2026

← All Dispatches

In the matter of Güzel v. Combs, et al., Index No. 152568/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.), Justice Leslie A. Stroth has declined to sign an order to show cause, a form of court order that sets the hearing and briefing schedule for a motion, proposed by Sher Tremonte LLP as part of its request to withdraw as counsel for Sean Combs and five affiliated companies. (ECF Nos. 170, 171, 172.)

Background

Seven Güzel sued Combs and others in New York County Supreme Court; her amended complaint alleges sexual assault by Combs. (ECF No. 23.) Sher Tremonte represents Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Daddy’s House Recordings Inc., CE Opco LLC and Revolt Media and TV LLC, which the firm’s papers call the “Combs Defendants.” (ECF No. 171 ¶ 1.)

On Sept. 2, 2026, the Combs Defendants moved to stay discovery while they appeal the court’s July 9, 2026 decision. (ECF No. 148.) Güzel’s counsel then noticed Combs’s deposition for Oct. 5 (ECF No. 154) and five of the companies’ for Oct. 8 (ECF Nos. 156–160).

The Affirmation

In an affirmation filed Sept. 15, a sworn statement made under penalty of perjury, partner Michael Tremonte asks the court under CPLR § 321(b)(2) to “dismiss” him, Erica Wolff and Michael Bass as counsel for the Combs Defendants. (ECF No. 171 ¶ 2.) He cites three grounds in New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(c): that withdrawal “can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client,” that the client “deliberately disregards an agreement or obligation to the lawyer as to expenses or fees,” and that the client “fails to cooperate in or otherwise renders the engagement unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out.” (Id. ¶ 4.)

Tremonte states that the firm sent monthly invoices through Combs’s power of attorney and that nonpayment “for over six months” left the Combs Defendants “falling far behind on their payments despite numerous reminders.” (Id. ¶ 5.) He also states that Combs “has declined to make himself available for timely, substantive, and direct communications about his cases for over four months.” (Id. ¶ 6.) He states that “[t]rial is not scheduled, and there are no hearings that would be delayed by Sher Tremonte’s withdrawal.” (Id. ¶ 7.) The firm says it will give the court more detail “in camera,” meaning privately, and that it told Combs by mail on Sept. 3 and Sept. 11 that it would seek to withdraw. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 11.)

The affirmation also addresses the deposition notices. It states that no preliminary conference has been held and that the court “has not ordered any deadlines for forthcoming proceedings.” (Id. ¶ 3.) It calls the notices premature and “unenforceable,” and asks that, if they are treated as valid, those dates and any other deadlines be adjourned 30 days. (Id.)

The Proposed Order

The proposed order directed the Combs Defendants to show cause, on a date left blank, why the three lawyers should not be dismissed as counsel and deadlines stayed for 30 days. It would also have stayed the case “until the Court issues a ruling on this motion to withdraw.” (ECF No. 170 at 1–2.)

The Judge’s Response

The copy posted Sept. 18 carries Justice Stroth’s handwritten response: “Decline to sign. This firm is counsel to the Combs defendants in many matters before this court at various stages of litigation. The court will not permit withdrawal based on the reasons stated (e.g. difficulty in communication the last 4 months, while Mr. Combs has been incarcerated), and without substitution of new counsel.” (Id. at 2.)

The Other Side

No position from Güzel’s counsel on the withdrawal appears in these filings, and the answering and reply dates in the proposed order were left blank. Tremonte states that Combs “will be provided a copy of these papers in their as-filed form.” (ECF No. 171 ¶ 12.) None of the three documents states Combs’s own position.

What’s Next

The note sets no hearing date and does not say whether the firm may renew its request. It does not address the Combs Defendants’ stay motion or the Oct. 5 and Oct. 8 deposition notices. In Combs’s separate defamation suit in federal court, where Sher Tremonte filed a similar motion to withdraw a day earlier (see the earlier Dispatch), Judge John P. Cronan ordered on Sept. 17 that counsel file a status letter by Oct. 19, 2026 on whether Combs will proceed pro se, meaning without a lawyer, or retain new counsel. (ECF No. 128, No. 1:25-cv-00650 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.).)

Counsel and Sources

Seven Güzel is represented by Merson Law, PLLC. The Combs Defendants are represented by Michael Tremonte, Erica A. Wolff and Michael Bass of Sher Tremonte LLP, which has asked to withdraw. Source: ECF Nos. 23, 148, 154, 156–160, 170, 171 and 172 on the Güzel v. Combs 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
Sourcing
Share: X / Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

← All Dispatches