Diddy Accuser Drops White Party Assault Lawsuit With Prejudice

Diddy‘s White Party sexual assault accuser is dropping his federal lawsuit with prejudice, according to a new filing in the case brought by a former security guard. The notice covers the action against the mogul and the companies named alongside him.

The plaintiff filed the notice in Manhattan federal court, with another copy entered November 13. It gives no explanation for the decision and discloses no payment or settlement terms.

The notice of voluntary dismissal states that the action “is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.” That designation prevents the plaintiff from bringing the same claims again.

“Counsel for Plaintiff have discussed this matter with counsel who acknowledge and consent to this submission,” the filing states. It lists attorneys Antigone Curis and Mark Cuccaro and includes an unfilled space for a judge’s signature.

The case began in October 2024, and an amended complaint followed on December 10 of that year. In his amended complaint, the man alleged Diddy drugged and sexually assaulted him while he worked security at an August 2007 party at the rapper’s East Hampton property.

Diddy has denied sexually assaulting anyone. His lawyers also challenged this particular lawsuit’s legal basis, arguing that the New York City gender-motivated violence law invoked by the plaintiff did not reach alleged conduct outside the city.

The defense raised additional objections about the filing deadline and the claims against Diddy’s companies. The plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages without specifying a dollar amount in the amended complaint.

The lawsuit also produced a dispute over anonymity. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald rejected the plaintiff’s request to proceed under a pseudonym in April 2025, and he appealed; the court subsequently stayed the case pending the appeals.

More recently, it became another front in Sher Tremonte’s effort to leave Diddy’s civil cases. The firm moved to withdraw in October, and Buchwald ordered the defendants to respond to its request.

That order also addressed the firm’s bid to retain case files over unpaid expenses. The new dismissal notice does not describe how those attorney-fee issues will be resolved.

Buchwald’s October 23 order set November 23 as the defendants’ response deadline.