DiddyDocket Dispatch
Christopher Wallace v. Jonathan Hay
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida No. 8:25-cv-03091 Judge Mary S. Scriven (Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn)
Sep 23, 2026

Wallace v. Hay: Hay Moves to Stay Damages Hearing Pending Los Angeles Prosecutors’ Review

Motion to Stay · Filed Sept. 18, 2026

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

In the matter of Wallace v. Hay, No. 8:25-cv-03091 (MSS) (SPF) (M.D. Fla.), Defendant Jonathan Hay, representing himself, has moved United States District Judge Mary S. Scriven to stay the case, including an evidentiary hearing on damages and attorneys’ fees set for Oct. 8, 2026, until the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office finishes reviewing two sexual assault investigations. In the alternative, he asks for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (ECF No. 31 at 1.)

Background

Christopher J. Wallace sued Hay in Tampa federal court on Nov. 12, 2025 (ECF No. 1). After substituted service through the Florida Secretary of State, the clerk entered a default, the entry made when a defendant has not answered in time, on May 6, 2026 (ECF No. 17). On Aug. 31, Judge Scriven denied Hay’s motion to set it aside, finding that “Hay was concealing his whereabouts and substituted service was proper,” and that his lack of good cause and “evasion of personal service” “demonstrate Hay’s reckless disregard for the judicial proceedings.” (ECF No. 23 at 5–6.)

The order held Wallace’s motion for default judgment in abeyance, meaning on hold, pending a hearing on damages, set for Oct. 8, 2026 at 1:00 p.m., and directed the parties to file exhibit and witness lists by 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 24. (Id. at 9–10.) Hay then moved for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) (ECF No. 26). His Sept. 4 supplement added a sworn declaration and a proposed amended answer, and asked in the alternative that the court hold the case in abeyance pending California criminal reviews. (ECF No. 28 at 2–3.)

The Motion

The motion, dated Sept. 18, describes the case as “a defamation action” concerning events in Los Angeles in 2020 and 2021 involving Wallace, Willie Mack and Sean “Diddy” Combs. (ECF No. 31 at 1.) It quotes a June 2026 statement from a spokesperson for District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s office that “LAPD and LASD each presented a separate sexual assault investigation for one victim” and that “We are reviewing the case,” and states that “[n]o charging decision has been announced.” (Id.)

Hay writes that he “is the complaining witness in that review.” He adds: “Defendant does not ask the Court to decide the criminal facts. He asks the Court not to try them first.” (Id. at 1–2.) He also states that he “does not ask the Court to revisit service or Dkt. 23.” (Id. at 4.)

The Legal Argument

The motion relies on a court’s inherent authority to manage its docket, citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936), and Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997), and applies a six-factor test. (Id. at 3.)

Hay states that he “is not invoking the Fifth Amendment,” which protects a person from being compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. His argument is that civil discovery and a public damages hearing directed at a complaining witness “function as a one-way valve into the criminal file.” (Id. at 4.) He says the stay is “tied to a public charging decision or declination, not an open-ended pause,” proposes a joint status report every 60 days, and states that he “will appear at any hearing this Court sets.” (Id.)

The motion also disputes the Complaint’s timeline, arguing that a damages hearing “built on the Complaint’s timeline will either ignore those records or try the later events that LADA is reviewing.” (Id. at 5.)

Relief Requested

Hay asks the court to stay the action, including the damages hearing, until the District Attorney’s Office “announces a charging decision or a declination.” Alternatively, he asks for a Rule 26(c) order barring discovery into the 2020–2021 Los Angeles incidents and into his communications with law enforcement, and barring hearing evidence on those subjects. (Id. at 5–6.)

The Other Side

Hay’s Local Rule 3.01(g) certificate states that he conferred by videoconference on Sept. 17 with Wallace’s counsel, Eric Pettis and Ari Wininger, and that “Plaintiff opposes the requested relief.” (Id. at 5.)

Wallace’s Sept. 15 opposition to reconsideration (ECF No. 29), filed before the motion to stay, argues that Rule 54(b) does not give “a disappointed litigant an opportunity to rebuild the record after learning why his first motion failed.” (Id. at 2.) As to the stay request in Hay’s supplement, it argues that the request “seeks different relief from the reconsideration motion” and that Hay submitted no evidence that any criminal review remains ongoing. (Id. at 10–11.)

What’s Next

The Oct. 8 hearing may be held in person or by Zoom at Wallace’s preference (ECF No. 23 at 9); Hay’s supplement asks that it proceed by Zoom (ECF No. 28 at 3). The motion to stay and the motion for reconsideration each ask the court to change or pause that schedule.

Counsel and Sources

Jonathan Hay is representing himself. Christopher J. Wallace is represented by Ronnie Bitman and Alexandria Crown of Bitman O’Brien, PLLC, and by Eric Pettis, Jeremiah Reynolds and Ari D. Wininger of Eisner LLP. Source: ECF Nos. 23, 28, 29 and 31 on the Wallace v. Hay docket. Hay is also the plaintiff in a separate Los Angeles Superior Court action, Hay v. Combs et al., No. 25SMCV03462, in which Wallace is a defendant.

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