A federal civil lawsuit brought by a former security guard against Sean Combs, also known as Diddy, and companies named alongside him has been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in Manhattan federal court.

The newly filed notice offers no explanation for the plaintiff’s decision. It also includes no information about a payment, a settlement, or any other terms between the parties. The notice says counsel for the plaintiff discussed the matter with opposing counsel, who acknowledged and consented to the submission.

For the practical legal result, the most important phrase is “with prejudice.” It means this plaintiff cannot refile the same claims against the defendants after the dismissal. It does not, by itself, establish why the matter ended or resolve public questions about the allegations and denials that had been made in the case.

What the lawsuit alleged

The case was initially filed in October 2024, followed by an amended complaint on December 10, 2024. In that amended filing, the plaintiff alleged that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted him while he was working security at an August 2007 party at Combs’ East Hampton property.

Those were allegations in a civil complaint, not findings by a court. Combs has denied sexually assaulting anyone. Because the suit has been dismissed with prejudice, these particular claims will not proceed through the ordinary next stages of this case, such as further litigation on the merits or a trial.

The plaintiff had sought compensatory and punitive damages, but the amended complaint did not state a specific dollar amount. Compensatory damages are generally requested to compensate a claimant for alleged harm or loss. Punitive damages are sought to punish especially wrongful conduct and deter it, though they are not automatic and depend on the claims and legal standards involved.

Why “with prejudice” matters

A voluntary dismissal can carry very different consequences depending on its wording. A dismissal without prejudice may leave open the possibility of bringing the same claims again, subject to procedural rules and deadlines. A dismissal with prejudice closes that door for the same claim against the same defendants.

That finality is significant, but readers should avoid treating the filing as a factual verdict. A dismissal notice does not say that a court evaluated the evidence and sided with either party. Nor does the absence of disclosed settlement terms establish that no agreement exists; it only means this filing does not state one. The record supplied with the notice gives no reason for the dismissal.

Related coverage includes White Party Civil Suit Against Diddy Is Voluntarily Dismissed With Prejudice.

The voluntary-dismissal language says the action “is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.”

In plain terms: this is an ending for this lawsuit, not an explanation of the private considerations that may have led to it.

The case had already been paused during an anonymity appeal

Before the dismissal, the litigation had been stayed while the plaintiff pursued an appeal connected to anonymity. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied the plaintiff’s request to continue under a pseudonym in April 2025. The plaintiff appealed that decision, and the case was subsequently paused pending the appeal.

A stay is a pause in proceedings. It differs from dismissal: a stayed case remains on the court’s docket while a specified issue is addressed, whereas this voluntary dismissal ends the action itself. The sequence matters because the dispute over whether the plaintiff could proceed anonymously was still a live procedural issue when the case was put on hold.

Anonymity requests are often contentious in civil cases involving highly sensitive allegations. The supplied filings establish that the request was denied and appealed, but they do not provide a broader explanation of the appeal’s status at the time of dismissal.

Combs’ lawyers had contested the legal foundation of this suit. Among other arguments, they said the New York City gender-motivated violence law cited by the plaintiff did not apply to alleged conduct said to have occurred outside New York City, at the East Hampton property.

The defense also raised objections concerning the filing deadline and the claims directed at Combs’ companies. Those arguments are important context, but the voluntary dismissal does not say whether any of them caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s decision. No one should infer a court ruling on those defenses from the dismissal notice alone.

Legal disputes frequently turn on questions separate from the underlying allegations: which law applies, where an alleged event occurred, when a claim was filed, and whether a particular defendant may be sued under a particular statute. Here, the available record confirms that such questions were raised, but the case will not now move forward to resolve them in this action.

Attorney withdrawal and file-retention questions are not addressed

The litigation had also become part of Sher Tremonte’s attempt to withdraw from Combs’ civil matters. The firm moved to withdraw in October, and Judge Buchwald directed the defendants to respond to that request.

The October 23 order also dealt with the firm’s request to retain case files over unpaid expenses. The new dismissal notice does not state what will happen with those lawyer-fee and file-related issues. A November 23 response deadline had been set for the defendants in connection with the withdrawal matter.

That leaves a narrow but meaningful distinction: the claims brought by the former security guard have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, while the notice itself does not explain the disposition of every attorney-related issue raised around the case. Court procedure can involve several overlapping motions, and ending the central lawsuit does not necessarily spell out how every collateral matter is handled.

What is known, and what remains undisclosed

  • The lawsuit against Combs and the listed companies has been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
  • The dismissal prevents this plaintiff from bringing the same claims again.
  • The notice gives no stated reason for the dismissal.
  • No settlement amount, payment, or settlement term is disclosed in the notice.
  • Combs has denied sexually assaulting anyone.
  • The dismissal is not a judicial finding on the allegations or the defenses.
  • The filing does not describe the outcome of the attorney withdrawal and expense-related issues.

The result is therefore clear on one point and limited on several others. This particular civil action is over permanently as to the claims covered by the dismissal. The public filing does not supply the reasoning behind that outcome, and it does not convert either side’s allegations or defenses into adjudicated facts.

For separate entertainment coverage, see Offset Says He and Cardi B Are on Good Terms, but Their Privacy Comes First.