Mitchelle v. Combs: Court Sustains Demurrer in Part, Keeps Gender-Violence Claim Against Combs
L.A. Super. Ct. · Case No. 25SMCV05091 · Minute Order Filed Oct. 13, 2026
In the matter of Mitchelle v. Combs, Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct.), Judge Susan Bryant-Deason has sustained in part and overruled in part the demurrer of Sean “Diddy” Combs and several of his companies, and denied their motion to strike. The plaintiff’s gender-violence claim against Combs goes forward. The court sustained the demurrer to the other claims, with twenty days to amend, and sustained it without leave to amend as to the gender-violence claim against the companies. (ECF No. 36 at 1.)
Background
Jarren Mitchelle, a rapper and singer according to his complaint, sued Combs and his businesses on Sept. 29, 2025, alleging sexual assault and battery, gender violence, and negligent supervision and retention. (ECF No. 3.) He alleges that in 2015, after he performed as an opening act at QC’s 20/20, a nightclub in Southeast Los Angeles, an associate of Combs handed him a drink “said to be from Combs himself,” that he lost consciousness, and that he regained it to find Combs groping him. (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 39–41.) He alleges the companies “enabled and conspired with” Combs and knew or should have known of his pattern of sexual violence. (Id. ¶¶ 55–58, 66.)
The defendants demurred and moved to strike on July 10, 2026. Mitchelle opposed on Sept. 29 and the defendants replied on Oct. 6. (ECF Nos. 24, 32, 34.) The court circulated a tentative ruling, heard the matter on Oct. 13 in Department J of the Santa Monica Courthouse, and adopted the tentative as its final order. Mitchelle’s counsel submitted on it; defense counsel argued only the motion to strike. The order records that the court “is informed” that Combs is incarcerated and in solitary confinement. (ECF No. 36 at 4.)
The Companies
As to the first claim, the court agreed that “no facts have been pled,” that the allegations against the companies are “conclusory,” and that nothing alleges they “actually knew about the conduct or agreed to a plan.” It called Mitchelle’s theory that one of the companies supplied security at the after-party “speculation.” (Id. at 2.)
On gender violence, the court relied on the statute’s provision that it does not create employer liability “unless the employer personally committed an act of gender violence.” The complaint, it found, “fails to allege that any Corporate Defendant personally committed the alleged misconduct,” so that claim fails against the companies without leave to amend. (Id. at 3.)
Combs
Defendants argued the gender-violence claim does not plausibly allege that the assault was motivated by gender. The statute, Civil Code section 52.4, defines gender violence two ways, and the second covers “a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions.” Because the defendants did not address that definition, the court overruled the demurrer on this ground. The order does not otherwise decide the gender-motivation argument. (Id. at 2–3.)
The court sustained the demurrer to negligent supervision, with leave to amend. It reasoned that the complaint alleges Combs “owned, controlled, and ‘completely dominated’” the entities as their chief executive, so “no supervisorial position” is alleged. (Id. at 3.) The order discusses the sexual assault and battery claim only as to the companies.
Motion to Strike
The defendants asked the court to strike allegations about Combs’s history of sexual assault on others, arguing they are irrelevant and “designed to inflame and prejudice.” The court denied the motion, noting that such motions are “cautiously and sparingly used” and that “some of the historical material bears on motive and the claim for punitive damages.” (Id. at 3–4.)
What the Ruling Does Not Decide
A demurrer tests whether a complaint states a claim, not whether its allegations are true. The ruling makes no finding about what happened at the 2015 event, and the companies may replead the claims on which they were given leave.
What Remains
The defendants are to give notice of the ruling. On its own motion, the court continued the case management conference from Oct. 13 to Dec. 9, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department J. (Id. at 4–5.)
Counsel and Sources
Mitchelle is represented by the Buzbee Law Firm; David Fortney appeared for him. Jonathan Gottlieb appeared on the defense side. Sources: ECF Nos. 3 and 36 on the Mitchelle 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.
- p. 1 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 1 -- "Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part. Defendant Combs’ demurrer is overruled as to the second cause of action for gender violence, and sustained with 20 days leave to amend as to the third cause of action for negligent supervision. The remaining defendants’ demurrer is sustained as to the first and third causes of action for sexual battery and negligent supervision, with 20 days leave to amend, and sustained as to the second cause of action for gender violence without leave to amend."
- p. 1 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 1 -- "Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED."
- p. 1 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 1 -- "For Plaintiff(s): David Fortney (via LACC) ... For Defendant(s): Jonathan Gottlieb"
- p. 1 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 1 -- "The Court’s tentative ruling is e-mailed for party/parties to review"
- p. 2 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 2 -- "The Court agrees that no facts have been pled, and thus, the allegations as to the corporate defendants are conclusory. There are no allegations that the corporate defendants actually knew about the conduct or agreed to a plan."
- p. 2 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 2 -- "Plaintiff’s speculation as to whether one of the corporation defendants provided the security who was at the afterparty is not sufficient."
- p. 2 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 2 -- "The Corporate Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the first cause of action."
- p. 2 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 2 -- "Defendants argue that the Complaint does not plausibly allege gender-based motivation under Civil Code section 52.4, subdivision (c)(1)"
- p. 3 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 3 -- "a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions"
- p. 3 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 3 -- "Because Defendants have not address Civil Code section 52.4, subdivision (c)(2), the demurrer is overruled on this ground."
- p. 3 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 3 -- "unless the employer personally committed an act of gender violence."
- p. 3 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 3 -- "The Complaint fails to allege that any Corporate Defendant personally committed the alleged misconduct. Thus, the Corporate Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the second cause of action."
- p. 3 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 3 -- "it alleges that Combs owned, controlled, and “completely dominated” the entities as their CEO and alter ego. There is no supervisorial position alleged as is required for this cause of action."
- p. 3 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 3 -- "Thus, the demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED."
- p. 3 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 3 -- "Defendants move to strike allegations referencing Defendant Combs’ history of sexual assault upon others"
- p. 4 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 4 -- "Defendants argue these allegations are designed to inflame and prejudice."
- p. 4 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 4 -- "Motions to strike are cautiously and sparingly used (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683), and context, and some of the historical material bears on motive and the claim for punitive damages."
- p. 4 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 4 -- "Thus, the motion to strike is DENIED. ... Defendants are ordered to give notice."
- p. 4 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 4 -- "The Court is informed that the Defendant Sean Combs is currently incarcerated and is in solitary confinement."
- p. 4 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 4 -- "Counsel for Plaintiff submits to the Court's tentative ruling. The Court hears oral argument from the Defendant's counsel regarding Motion to Strike aspect of the tentative ruling."
- p. 4 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 4 -- "the Court adopts its tentative ruling as the final order of the Court."
- p. 4 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 4 -- "On the Court's own motion, the Case Management Conference scheduled for 10/13/2026 is"
- p. 5 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 5 -- "continued to 12/09/2026 at 08:30 AM in Department J at Santa Monica Courthouse."
- p. 5 — Minute Order (Bryant-Deason, J.), Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J, Oct. 13, 2026) (ECF No. 36), p. 5 -- "Defendant is to give notice."
- p. 13 — Complaint, Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J), filed Sept. 29, 2025 (ECF No. 3), p. 13 -- "An associate of Combs handed Plaintiff a Ciroc-based alcoholic beverage said to be from Combs himself."
- p. 14 — Complaint, Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J), filed Sept. 29, 2025 (ECF No. 3), p. 14 -- "Plaintiff regained consciousness from a physical jolt and found Combs grabbing his crotch while his pants had already been removed. Combs was groping him."
- p. 16 — Complaint, Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J), filed Sept. 29, 2025 (ECF No. 3), p. 16 -- "The Combs Business enabled and conspired with Combs to commit the offending sexual battery"
- p. 18 — Complaint, Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct., Dept. J), filed Sept. 29, 2025 (ECF No. 3), p. 18 -- "The Combs Business Defendants enabled and ratified Defendant Combs’ acts of gender violence"
- — Docket, Mitchelle v. Combs et al., Case No. 25SMCV05091 (L.A. Super. Ct.), entries 3, 24, 32, 34 -- "[Complaint filed 9/29/2025 (entry 3); Demurrer with Motion to Strike filed 7/10/2026 by Combs and others (entry 24); Opposition filed 9/29/2026 (entry 32); Reply filed 10/6/2026 (entry 34). Descriptions and dates from the docket; the papers themselves are not in the library. Not machine-checkable.]"