New lawsuit says Jay-Z's accuser admitted false claim, but declaration says otherwise
Jay-Z sued his accuser for defamation on Monday, and she reiterated her rape claim against him in an official declaration that says she's been intimidated and harassed.
A new lawsuit says the woman who accused Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter of rape “voluntarily admitted” her claim was false and influenced by plaintiff’s attorney Tony Buzbee.
But Buzbee’s lawyers said the woman still maintains the rapper and billionaire business mogul attacked her at a party in 2000 when she was 13, and they filed a declaration from her that says she dismissed her lawsuit only because of fear. The woman said two investigators working for Jay-Z’s lawyers went to her home on Feb. 21 and asked her to sign an affidavit stating her claims are false but “I refused.”
“They also asked me if Mr. Buzbee sought me out as a client, and whether Mr. Buzbee offered to pay me to pursue a false claim against Jay-Z. I told them that neither of those things ever happened, and I asked them to leave me alone,” according to the declaration.
Carter’s new lawsuit, however, alleges Buzbee and his co-counsel David Fortney duped the woman from beginning to end, including by “falsely, maliciously and manipulatively” telling the woman her lawsuit needed to be dismissed because Carter was threatening to kill her. In reality, they “were desperate to withdraw the false case or face punishment in court,” according to the 25-page complaint filed Monday in federal court in Mobile, Alabama.
Carter’s new lawsuit says the woman has made three other sexual assault allegations “which were either dropped or dismissed by courts.”
The lawsuit has four causes of action: malicious prosecution, abuse of process and civil conspiracy against the woman, Buzbee, Fortney and Buzbee’s law firm, and defamation against the woman for statements made during a Dec. 13 NBC News interview.
The filing and the woman’s declaration are the first indication that Buzbee’s team dismissed the rape lawsuit against Carter and Sean “Diddy” Combs last month not because of its merit but because of procedural issues involving Buzbee’s ability to practice law in the Southern District of New York. Carter’s lawyers have said Buzbee avoided officially appearing as a lawyer in the case to avoid possible sanctions for his lack of investigation into the credibility of the woman’s claims.
The judge assigned the case, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, on Jan. 28 ordered Buzbee to file proof of his admission to the SDNY by Feb. 14. Buzbee applied for admission the next day, but he was rejected on Feb. 13, and he moved to dismiss the lawsuit the next day.
According to Carter’s new lawsuit, Fortney, who works at Buzbee’s firm in Houston, Texas, traveled to Alabama on Feb. 13 to meet with the woman. It anonymizes her as Jane Doe and says Carter “first became aware of Doe’s identity on or around February 21, 2025; and has never met or interacted in any way with Doe.”
“During that meeting, Fortney falsely, maliciously and manipulatively told Doe that the case against Mr. Carter needed to be dismissed as Mr. Carter had made threats against Doe’s life, and it was too dangerous to continue with the case. Of course, no such threats had ever been made,” according to the complaint. “Rather, Buzbee and Fortney were desperate to withdraw the false case or face punishment in court for their actions in filing a false pleading without Buzbee even being admitted in the SDNY – jeopardizing their ability to continue with the more than 20 other cases they had pending in SDNY.”
Buzbee’s and Carter’s battle already was to continue through an extortion and defamation lawsuit Carter filed against Buzbee in Los Angeles County Superior Court. But Carter’s new lawsuit says the fight grew to include “further extortionate threats and demands” as Buzbee’s team tried to stop Carter’s lawyers from publicizing the woman’s statements about Buzbee by threatening to publicly accuse him of harassing her.
Another lawyer working with Buzbee and Fortney said Buzbee would publicly state the woman dropped the lawsuit “only because she was afraid for her life and that the allegations against Mr. Carter in the dropped lawsuit were all true,” according to the complaint.
“Of course, Doe’s allegations about being harassed by Mr. Carter’s ‘people’ since she dropped the lawsuit and about her reasons for dropping the lawsuit, are, and always were, false,” according to the complaint. “Thus, the threats of extortion and further defamation continue to this day, necessitating that Mr. Carter take action to prevent unscrupulous actors from further preying on him.”
In an email to Legal Affairs and Trials, Buzbee said the woman “hasn’t and won’t” recant her story and “instead she has stated repeatedly she stands by her claims.”
“After speaking with Jane Doe today, it’s clear to me that the quotes attributed to her in the lawsuit are completely made up, or they spoke to someone who isn’t Jane Doe,” Buzbee said. “This is just another attempt to intimidate and bully this poor woman that we will deal with in due course. We won’t be bullied or intimidated by frivolous cases.”
In addition to three previous dropped sexual assault allegations, the woman has a history of mental health problems, Carter’s new lawsuit says. Less than three months before Buzbee sent Carter’s lawyers a demand letter, the woman was in court “on mental health related issues in connection with her second degree assault charge” and jailed for failing a drug test. Testimony from her psychiatrist available in court records indicates the woman “has several mental health disorders, and takes multiple medications,” according to the complaint.
The complaint also says the woman’s parents recently declared bankruptcy and have custody of her children.
“Doe appears to be suffering from personal and financial hardship. … Desperate to obtain a payday, Doe hired the Buzbee law firm―which has a long history of whipping up a media frenzy with vague and sensational claims against public figures―to extort payments from Mr. Carter under the threat of devastating harm to his reputation,” according to the complaint.
The woman said in her two-page declaration that the investigators who went to her home on Feb. 21 also approached her father and mother “multiple times,” “asking them similar questions about whether Mr. Buzbee had paid me, and requesting that they sign affidavits stating that my claims were false.”
“It is very alarming to me that Jay-Z’s agents are looking for me and now know my whereabouts. Fear of intimidation and retaliation from Jay-Z and/or his associates or fans is one of the reasons that I chose not to pursue the New York Action and instructed my attorneys to dismiss it,” according to the declaration, which is dated Feb. 27 but was not filed until Monday. “Although I ultimately chose not to pursue them, I stand by my claims in the New York Action and believe that I had a meritorious claim against Jay-Z.”
The woman restated the claims that sparked the litigation:
“In September of 2000, when I was approximately thirteen years old, I attended a party at a house in New York where both Sean Combs (“Diddy”) and Jay-Z were present. I saw and recognized both men at the party. At the party, I accepted a drink and began to feel lightheaded. I went into an empty bedroom to lie down by myself. Soon after that, Diddy, Jay-Z, and another individual entered the bedroom. Jay-Z removed my clothes, and both Jay-Z and Diddy engaged in sexual intercourse with me. I did not consent to this, and, given that I was only thirteen at the time, I could not have given valid consent.”
Buzbee’s lawyers at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP filed the declaration in the extortion and defamation case Carter filed against Buzbee in California state court. Sheppard partner Camille Vasquez said investigators contacting the woman on behalf of attorneys when they know she’s represented by a lawyer “is extremely troubling.”
The judge in that case, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark H. Epstein, said last week he’ll likely dismiss the extortion claim unless Carter’s lawyers bring new evidence showing Buzbee sought money from Carter with no plan to sue and without the consent of his clients.
In a Feb. 28 hearing, Robert Schwartz, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in Los Angeles, said an investigator spoke with someone who said Buzbee sent two demand letters to Carter without the knowledge of Jane Doe and a male client identified as John Doe. Schwartz, however, said he didn’t believe the investigator can publicly name his source, so Epstein proceeded with oral argument and urged Schwartz “to submit new evidence “sooner than later” if he’s going to do so.
The judge had not finalized his dismissal order as of Monday evening, but he indicated last week that the lawsuit definitely will move forward on three of the six statements brought under the defamation claim.
Vasquez’s filing on Monday said any statements from the woman submitted by Carter’s lawyers shouldn’t be considered new evidence.
“To the extent that Jane Doe was the unidentified person referred to at the hearing— or to the extent the unidentified person will provide hearsay testimony lacking personal knowledge—then Jane Doe’s Declaration suffices to establish that the proffered “new evidence” would be futile,” Vasquez wrote.
Combs’s lawyers oppose Buzbee’s pro hac vice application
Combs’s lawyers recently took the rare step of opposing Buzbee’s pro hac vice admission request in a sexual assault lawsuit in the SDNY. Buzbee asked for pro hac vice status after his request for regular admission to the SDNY was rejected. Buzbee is licensed in Texas and New York state courts, and he likely would have been admitted to the SDNY if he’d asked before he filed about two dozens lawsuits.
But the SDNY’s Committee on Grievances cited the fact that he’d filed cases without admission when it rejected his admission application and told him to include the order if he seeks pro hac vice admission in any case. Pro hac vice admissions are standard and uncontroversial, too, but Combs’s lawyers at Sher Tremonte LLP said in a Feb. 25 filing that Buzbee’s tactics warrant the unprecedented response.
“In our collective decades of practice, undersigned counsel have never opposed a pro hac vice application, and we do not do so lightly here. But Buzbee’s egregious misconduct warrants denial of the privilege of appearing in this District,” according to the filing.
Previous article:
PDFs of the new complaint as well as Jane Doe’s declaration, Camille Vasquez’s filings and Combs’s lawyers opposition to Buzbee’s pro hac vice application are available below for paid subscribers. Paid subscriptions make my work possible.