Jay-Z's (real name Shawn Carter) legal team has submitted a letter attempting to dismiss the sexual assault case levied against him by a minor due to a technicality that would invalidate the case.
A 13-year-old unidentified plaintiff levied accusations of assault against Carter, Sean "Diddy" Combs and an unidentified female celebrity (Celebrity B), accusing the two men of assault. Just last week, a federal Judge in the state of New York refused requests to have these claims dismissed.
Now, Carter's lawyer, Alex Spiro, is attempting to invalidate the plaintiff's complaint by utilizing a timing technicality, reported Deadline.
"Plaintiff cannot recover for her sole claim under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act (the GMV Law), as a matter of law, because the statute does not have retroactive effect," wrote Spiro in a two-page letter to Judge Analisa Torres Monday.
"Plaintiff asserts a violation of the GMV Law for conduct that purportedly occurred in September 2000," Spiro continued. "But the GMV Law was not enacted until December 19, 2000, three months after the FAC claims the conduct occurred, and cannot apply retroactively to create a cause of action unavailable to Plaintiff at the time in question."
Furthermore, Spiro is asserting that Jane Doe's ability to pursue legal repercussions for his client "expired no later than August 2021."
Spiro and Carter have noted that "any viable GMV Law claim is time-barred under New York's Child Victims Act (CVA), which preempts Plaintiff's GMV Law claim," following a sexual assault lawsuit levied against musician Steven Tyler by a minor which was later dismissed due to when it was presented.
In 2019, the Child Victim's Act was amended to include another 30 months. "The Courts in this District, however, have recognized that the CVA's revival period preempts the GMV Law's overlapping and extended one."
Hence, considering the fact that the alleged assault occurred over two decades ago, the unknown defendant is three years too late to levy the charges.
"Even if the GMV Law had retroactive effect — it does not — to prevail, Plaintiff must show that the violative conduct was "committed within New York City," the letter to the judge states.
Originally published by The Latin Times.
