Howard v. Combs: Court Grants Cassandra Ventura’s Motion to Dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint and Grants in Part the Combs, Bad Boy and CeOpco Motion

In the matter of Howard v. Combs et al., No. 2:25-cv-06031 (C.D. Cal.), United States District Judge Anne Hwang ruled from the bench on Oct. 21, 2026 on two motions to dismiss the Fifth Amended Complaint (“5AC”) filed by plaintiff Clayton Howard, who represents himself. The court granted the motion of defendant Cassandra “Cassie” Ventura. It granted in part and denied in part the motion of defendants Sean “Diddy” Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC and CeOpco, LLC, with leave to amend.

Background

Howard sued on June 30, 2025. In the court’s July 23 summary, he alleges that between 2009 and 2019 he worked as a “male companion” for Combs and Ventura, and he brings human-trafficking and sexual-assault claims. That order dismissed several claims with prejudice, meaning without a chance to refile them, and dismissed the third and fourth causes of action as to Ventura and the corporate defendants “with leave to amend” (ECF No. 154 at 20). Howard filed the 5AC on Aug. 3 (ECF No. 159). It pleads four causes of action: California human trafficking, the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, California sexual assault under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16, and New York human trafficking under Social Services Law § 483-bb. Ventura’s own filings spell her first name “Casandra.” Both motions were filed Aug. 24 (ECF Nos. 162, 163).

The Ruling

The minutes of the hearing, entered Oct. 23, state that the court “is prepared to provide an oral ruling.” On Ventura, they state: “Defendant Ventura’s motion to dismiss [163] is hereby granted, this will be the order as stated on the record.” On the other defendants, they state that the motion at ECF No. 162 “is hereby granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend within 14 days. Defendant Combs shall file an answer within 14 days.” (ECF No. 181 at 1.)

The court also “denies the ex parte application for Leave to file Substitute Proposed 6AC [176]” and “will consider” Howard’s separate ex parte application for leave to file a sur-reply, which is an extra brief after the reply (ECF No. 181 at 1).

What the Minutes Do Not Say

The minutes give no reasons. They do not say whether Ventura’s dismissal is with or without prejudice, or whether Howard may amend as to her; the leave-to-amend sentence appears only in the sentence about the other defendants’ motion. They do not say which claims remain against Combs. No transcript or written order has been entered on the docket.

Ventura’s Motion

Her memorandum calls the 5AC “Plaintiff Clayton Howard’s sixth attempt to plead claims against Ms. Ventura” and asks that dismissal be “with prejudice” (ECF No. 163-1 at 6). It argues that Howard still does not allege she used force, fraud or coercion, that the California sexual-assault claim is time-barred, and that she cannot be shown to have intended to traffic him “because Ms. Ventura was herself Combs’s trafficking victim” (ECF No. 163-1 at 7). It cites the July 23 order’s statement that Howard “does not plausibly allege any specific, relevant incident as to Ms. Ventura that exceeded the scope of his consent that occurred within the limitations period” (ECF No. 154 at 14). Howard filed an opposition on Sept. 4 (ECF No. 166).

The Combs, Bad Boy and CeOpco Motion

Their memorandum argues under the headings “No Claim Is Stated Against Mr. Combs” and “No Claim Is Stated Against the Corporate Defendants” (ECF No. 162-1 at 2). Howard opposed on Sept. 4 (ECF No. 165).

Next Steps

Under the minutes, any amended complaint and Combs’s answer are each due “within 14 days.” The minutes do not say whether that period runs from the Oct. 21 hearing or from a written order. On Oct. 23, Howard signed a transcript order for the Oct. 21 hearing with 14-day delivery (ECF No. 182). On Oct. 26, the clerk’s office noticed a deficiency, stating “THIS HEARING WAS NOT DIGITALLY RECORDED” and “THE ORDER FORM AND THE FILING EVENT USED DO NOT CORRESPOND,” and directing that the request be refiled electronically (ECF No. 183, text-only entry). A further “Notice (Other)” was entered the same day (ECF No. 184); the entry carries no further description.

Counsel and Sources

Counsel: Clayton Howard, pro se, for Plaintiff. Michael Schonbuch, Jonathan D. Gottlieb and Lilah N. Cook, Schonbuch Hallissy LLP, for Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC and CeOpco, LLC. Mélodie Han and Douglas H. Wigdor, Wigdor LLP, for Ventura (Han appeared by Zoom). Sources: ECF No. 181 and the filings cited above on the No. 2:25-cv-06031 docket.

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