Ward v. Combs: Judge Sustains Demurrer in Part, Lets Gender-Violence Claim Against Combs Proceed
Minute Order · Sept. 16, 2026
In the matter of Lakeisha Ward v. Sean Combs, et al., No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty.), Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld has ruled on the defendants’ demurrer, a challenge to whether a complaint states a legal claim, and their motion to strike. The demurrer was “OVERRULED in part, and SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART”; the motion to strike was denied. (Minute Order at 2.) The ruling leaves Ward’s gender-violence claim against Combs standing, ends it against the corporate defendants without leave to amend, and gives Ward twenty days to replead the rest. (Id.)
Background
Ward, represented by The Buzbee Law Firm, filed her complaint on Oct. 2, 2025. It pleads three claims: sexual assault and battery, gender violence, and negligent supervision and retention. Named as defendants are Combs and seven companies. Ward alleges the assault occurred in 2018 at a party she was invited to, and she sued in 2025. (Id. at 3, 6.) Combs and six of the companies, the “Corporate Defendants,” demurred to all three claims on April 3, 2026, arguing they were uncertain, time-barred and, as to the companies, insufficiently pleaded, and moved to strike references to Combs’s history of other allegations. (Id. at 1, 3–4, 8.)
Timeliness and Uncertainty
The court rejected the uncertainty and limitations challenges. The complaint is “sufficiently clear that Plaintiff is attempting to hold Defendants liable for sexual assault, gender violence, and negligent supervision and retention.” (Id. at 3.) On the statute of limitations, it applied Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16, which allows suit within ten years of the last act of sexual assault. A 2018 incident and a 2025 filing fall within that period, so the first claim “is not barred”; the second and third claims are not barred either, given a window that allows otherwise time-barred claims to be filed until Dec. 31, 2026. (Id. at 3–4.)
Sexual Assault: Companies Dismissed With Leave to Amend
The court sustained the demurrer to the first claim as to the companies only. The complaint “does not allege any Corporate Defendants were present at, participated in, or committed any act toward Plaintiff in connection with the alleged assault,” and that “[c]onclusory statements are not admitted on demurrer.” (Id. at 5.) Ratification and alter ego were also insufficiently pleaded: Ward “does not allege facts that the Corporate Defendants learned of, investigated, or approved of” the alleged assault, and alleges no “commingling of funds, that one entity is liable for the debts of another, disregard of corporate formalities, or lack of segregation of corporate records.” (Id. at 5.) The ruling leaves the first claim against Combs untouched.
Gender Violence: Claim Against Combs Stands
The defendants argued the complaint does not plead gender-based motivation, citing Doe v. Kachru (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 175, which held that “some discriminatory motivation is a requisite element” of a claim under Civil Code section 52.4. That argument “does not defeat the claim at the demurrer stage,” the court held, because Ward also pleads the statute’s alternative definition, “a physical intrusion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions,” and her allegations, taken as true on demurrer, satisfy it. (Id. at 6.)
As to the companies, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Section 52.4 does not create employer liability “unless the employer personally committed an act of gender violence,” and the complaint alleges only that the companies “enabled, failed to supervise, or ratified” Combs’s actions. “[B]ecause a corporation cannot personally commit an alleged sexual assault, there is no room to amend.” (Id.)
Negligent Supervision: Sustained as to All Defendants
The court sustained the demurrer to the third claim with leave to amend as to every defendant, Combs included. “No person or entity is plead to have occupied a supervisorial position over Combs,” and Ward’s alter-ego theory is “in tension” with the claim: “An entity that is a mere instrumentality ‘completely dominated’ by Combs cannot simultaneously be an independent supervisor who could have controlled him.” As against Combs, the court held the claim “fails as a matter of law,” reasoning that a person accused of an assault “cannot be the supervisor charged with negligently failing to prevent his own act.” (Id. at 7.)
Motion to Strike Denied
The defendants asked the court to strike references to “Combs’ history of other allegations involving other individuals, incidents, or lawsuits.” The court denied the motion, calling such motions disfavored and finding the challenged passages “relevant to the matters that remain” and that prior-misconduct allegations “may bear on notice and motive, as well as punitive damages against Combs and the gender violence cause of action.” The defendants’ concern that the allegations invite an improper propensity inference is “better addressed through objections to evidence, not by excising the allegations at the pleading stage.” (Id. at 8.)
What’s Next
Ward “may file and serve an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of entry of this order.” (Id. at 2.) A Trial Setting Conference is set for Dec. 10, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department N of the Santa Monica Courthouse. (Id. at 8.) Notice is waived. (Id.)
Counsel and Sources
David Fortney appeared for Ward via LACC, the court’s remote-appearance system, and Jonathan Gottlieb for Bad Boy Productions Holdings, Inc. Ward’s complaint was filed by Anthony G. Buzbee, David C. Fortney, Thomas Colby Holler and Meredith Drukker Stratigopoulos of The Buzbee Law Firm. Source: the Sept. 16, 2026 Minute Order on the Ward 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. 2 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 2 -- "Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED in part, and SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART."
- p. 2 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 2 -- "The demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained with leave to amend as to the Corporate Defendants. The demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled as to Combs and sustained without leave to amend as to the Corporate Defendants. The demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained with leave to amend as to all Defendants."
- p. 2 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 2 -- "Plaintiff Lakeisha Ward may file and serve an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of entry of this order."
- p. 3 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 3 -- "The allegations in the complaint are sufficiently clear that Plaintiff is attempting to hold Defendants liable for sexual assault, gender violence, and negligent supervision and retention."
- p. 3 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 3 -- "Here, Plaintiff alleges the assault occurred in 2018, and filed suit in 2025, falling within the ten-year period. Therefore, Plaintiff’s first cause of action is not barred by the statute of limitations."
- p. 4 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 4 -- "Claims based on conduct occurring on or after January 1, 2009, commenced on or after January 1, 2019, that would otherwise be time-barred, are permitted to be commenced until December 31, 2026."
- p. 4 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 4 -- "Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action are not barred by the statute of limitations."
- p. 5 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 5 -- "The Complaint does not allege any Corporate Defendants were present at, participated in, or committed any act toward Plaintiff in connection with the alleged assault. Conclusory statements are not admitted on demurrer."
- p. 5 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 5 -- "Plaintiff does not allege facts that the Corporate Defendants learned of, investigated, or approved of Plaintiff’s alleged sexual assault."
- p. 5 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 5 -- "Plaintiff does not allege any facts that there was commingling of funds, that one entity is liable for the debts of another, disregard of corporate formalities, or lack of segregation of corporate records."
- p. 5 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 5 -- "Accordingly, the demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained with leave to amend as to the Corporate Defendants."
- p. 6 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 6 -- "some discriminatory motivation is a requisite element"
- p. 6 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 6 -- "This argument does not defeat the claim at the demurrer stage, because Plaintiff pleads the alternative definition in subdivision (c)(2), a physical intrusion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions, and the allegations of the complaint satisfy that definition."
- p. 6 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 6 -- "Defendants’ demurrer is overruled as to the second cause of action as to Combs."
- p. 6 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 6 -- "this section does not establish any civil liability of a person because of his or her status as an employer, unless the employer personally committed an act of gender violence."
- p. 6 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 6 -- "The Complaint does not allege any Corporate Defendants personally committed an act of gender violence, only alleging the Corporate Defendants enabled, failed to supervise, or ratified Combs’s actions. Further, because a corporation cannot personally commit an alleged sexual assault, there is no room to amend."
- p. 7 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 7 -- "No person or entity is plead to have occupied a supervisorial position over Combs."
- p. 7 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 7 -- "An entity that is a mere instrumentality “completely dominated” by Combs cannot simultaneously be an independent supervisor who could have controlled him."
- p. 7 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 7 -- "Further, as against Combs, the claim fails as a matter of law. The perpetrator of a sexual assault cannot be the supervisor charged with negligently failing to prevent his own act."
- p. 7 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 7 -- "Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the third cause of action as to all Defendants."
- p. 8 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 8 -- "Defendants move to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint, namely references Combs’ history of other allegations involving other individuals, incidents, or lawsuits."
- p. 8 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 8 -- "The challenged portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint of Combs’ history are relevant to the matters that remain. The allegations of prior misconduct may bear on notice and motive, as well as punitive damages against Combs and the gender violence cause of action."
- p. 8 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 8 -- "Defendants’ concern that the allegations invite an improper propensity inference is better addressed through objections to evidence, not by excising the allegations at the pleading stage."
- p. 8 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 8 -- "Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is denied."
- p. 8 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 8 -- "Trial Setting Conference is scheduled for 12/10/2026 at 08:30 AM in Department N at Santa Monica Courthouse."
- p. 1 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 1 -- "The Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) filed by Sean Combs, CE OPCO, LLC, Daddy's House Recordings, Inc., Bad Boy Books Holdings, Inc., Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., BAD BOY PRODUCTIONS, LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC on 04/03/2026 is Overruled."
- p. 1 — Minute Order, Ward v. Combs, No. 25SMCV05241 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cnty. Sept. 16, 2026) (docket entry 32), p. 1 -- "For Plaintiff(s): David Fortney via LACC ... For Defendant(s): Jonathan Gottlieb for Bad Boy Productions Holdings, Inc."