Jay-Z seeks to dismiss 2000 rape case citing 'calendar, geography'
What's the story
Rapper Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter, continues to fight allegations of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl over two decades ago.
The accusations also include Sean "Diddy" Combs and an unidentified female celebrity.
Despite a federal judge in New York rejecting his initial attempt to dismiss the claims, Jay-Z and his lawyer Alex Spiro are now arguing that the case should be dismissed based on "calendar and geography."
Legal strategy
Jay-Z's legal team argues against the retroactive application of law
Spiro has contended that the plaintiff cannot seek recovery under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMV Law) since it doesn't have a retroactive effect.
In a letter to Judge Analisa Torres, he wrote, "Plaintiff asserts a violation of the GMV Law for conduct that purportedly occurred in September 2000. But the GMV Law was not enacted until December 19, 2000...and cannot apply retroactively to create a cause of action unavailable to Plaintiff at the time in question."
Legal argument
Jay-Z's defense also cites New York's Child Victims Act
Further, Spiro and his client are also arguing that the plaintiff's ability to mount a legal action "expired no later than August 2021."
They reference a dismissed sexual assault case against Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler in late 2023 to argue that "any viable GMV Law claim is time-barred under New York's Child Victims Act (CVA), which preempts Plaintiff's GMV Law claim."
Case details
Jay-Z's defense highlights inconsistencies in the plaintiff's account
The alleged assault on the minor, identified as Jane Doe, is said to have occurred on September 7, 2000.
An amended complaint by Tony Buzbee (representing Doe) named Jay-Z as "Celebrity A" on December 8.
In response to the allegations, Jay-Z released a handwritten statement denying any involvement in such an act.
He wrote: "These allegations are so heinous in nature that I implore you to file a criminal complaint, not a civil one!!"
Location dispute
Jay-Z's lawyer questioned the validity of assault location
Spiro has also questioned the validity of the alleged assault location.
He argued that even if the GMV Law had a retroactive effect, the plaintiff must show that the violative conduct was 'committed within New York City.'
"According to the FAC, Plaintiff was driven from Radio City Music Hall to a 'large white residence with a gated U-shaped driveway'—a drive that took 20 minutes," Spiro's correspondence on behalf of Jay-Z went on to say.