DiddyDocket Dispatch
Louis Reed v. Sean Combs et al. + 2 related cases
New York Supreme Court No. 161676/2024 Justice Arlene P. Bluth
Oct 23, 2026

Reed v. Combs: Justice Bluth Grants Sher Tremonte’s Withdrawal in Three Cases, With Conditions

N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County · Index Nos. 161676/2024, 161674/2024, 161671/2024 · Mot. Seq. 004 · Signed Oct. 23, 2026

← All Dispatches
Share: X / Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
← Previous

In the matter of Reed v. Combs, Index No. 161676/2024, and the related cases Dunn v. Combs (161674/2024) and Taylor v. Combs et al. (161671/2024), all in New York County Supreme Court, Justice Arlene P. Bluth has granted, without opposition, Sher Tremonte LLP’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Sean “Diddy” Combs. In Taylor the order also covers the companies the firm represents. Each order, signed Oct. 23, 2026, makes the withdrawal “conditioned upon outgoing counsel complying with the following” steps and refers to the next conference, on Jan. 20, 2027. (Reed, NYSCEF Doc. No. 81 at 1–2; Dunn, Doc. No. 78; Taylor, Doc. No. 79.)

Background

The three plaintiffs sued on Dec. 12, 2024, through the same law firm, in verified complaints filed under the name John Doe; the court’s orders use their names. Each complaint brings claims under the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law and for sexual assault. The allegations below are the plaintiffs’ and have not been proven.

  1. Taylor, a New York resident, alleges he met Combs around 2006, when Combs hired him to run errands, and that in or about February 2020, in Combs’s suite at a Manhattan hotel, his drink was drugged and he was sexually assaulted. (Taylor, Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 27–35.)
  2. Dunn, also a New York resident, alleges he met Combs in 2019 at a Manhattan nightclub and was then taken to Combs’s hotel suite, where he was given a drugged drink and sexually assaulted. (Dunn, Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 27–40.)
  3. Reed alleges that in the summer of 2020 he attended a party at Combs’s residence in East Hampton, N.Y., was drugged, and was sexually assaulted by Combs and associates. (Reed, Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 28–38.)

Sher Tremonte’s motion (Mot. Seq. 004) was signed as an order to show cause on Sept. 17 and reached its Oct. 14 return date; see the earlier Dispatch for the firm’s stated grounds and the service on Combs at FCI Fort Dix.

The Orders

The orders state no reasons. Each lists the papers read and holds that the motion “is granted without opposition conditioned upon outgoing counsel complying with the following.” (Reed, Doc. No. 81 at 1.) The conditions:

  1. Service within five days. The firm must “serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon defendant by first class mail, and by posting to the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System.”
  2. A notice to the client. With that copy, the firm must send “a notice directing the former client to appoint a substitute attorney or that the defendant may choose to be self-represented,” and upload an affidavit of service to NYSCEF within five days.
  3. New counsel, if any. A new attorney “shall file a notice of appearance by posting it to NYSCEF within 20 days from the date the notice to retain new counsel is mailed.”
  4. A 30-day pause. “[N]o further proceedings may be taken against the former client without leave of this court for a period of 30 days after service on the former client.” (Reed, Doc. No. 81 at 1–2.)
  5. The January conference. “[I]f defendant does not appear at the next conference on January 20, 2027 the answer may be stricken.” (Id. at 2.)

How Taylor Differs

The Taylor order speaks of “defendants” and “former clients,” because the firm there also represents four Combs companies. It tells the firm to advise them “that the individual defendant only may choose to be self-represented” — Combs, not the companies. (Taylor, Doc. No. 79 at 1.) The Taylor order also ties the affidavit deadline to “mailing the notice,” where the Dunn and Reed orders say “emailing the notice.”

What the Orders Do Not Say

The orders do not mention a retaining lien, which is a law firm’s right to hold a client’s files until its fees are paid, or the 30-day stay of all deadlines that the firm asked for. They name no successor counsel and set no date for one. They also do not decide the firm’s proposed orders in 14 other New York County cases before Justice Stroth, described in this Dispatch; those are different motions before a different justice.

What Is Next

The next conference in all three cases is Jan. 20, 2027. The records show no filing after the orders yet: no notice of entry, no affidavit of service and no notice of appearance by new counsel.

Counsel and Sources

Counsel: Thomas P. Giuffra, Jeremy A. Hellman and Ethan J. Cohen, Rheingold Giuffra Ruffo Plotkin & Hellman LLP, for the plaintiffs in all three cases. Sher Tremonte LLP (Michael Tremonte, Mark Cuccaro, Erica Wolff and Raphael Friedman) is counsel for Combs, and in Taylor for the four companies, until the withdrawal takes effect. Sources: NYSCEF Doc. No. 81 on the Reed v. Combs docket, Doc. No. 78 on the Dunn v. Combs docket, and Doc. No. 79 on the Taylor v. Combs docket; the plaintiffs’ allegations come from each case’s verified complaint (Doc. No. 1). The motion papers are not reported here beyond what the orders and the earlier Dispatch say.

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