Universal Music Group asks court to dismiss it from Sara Rivers’ lawsuit against Diddy, claiming no involvement and improper inclusion in the case.
Universal Music Group (UMG) has formally asked a federal court to remove itself from Sara Rivers’s lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, arguing that it was improperly swept into litigation targeting the hip-hop mogul.
Rivers, who rose to prominence on MTV’s Making the Band, alleges that Diddy subjected her to hostile and inhumane treatment during her tenure under his management, and she named UMG alongside several dozen other parties in her original complaint.
In a motion to dismiss filed earlier this month, UMG contends that the claims leveled at the music company are both procedurally and substantively defective.
First, UMG argues that Rivers’s federal claims against it are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
According to UMG, whatever relationship Rivers may have had with the label—or any alleged wrongdoing—occurred outside the window during which she could bring a timely action under federal law.
Second, UMG says that any federal causes of action are preempted by New York state law. Because Rivers’s allegations hinge on matters traditionally governed by state tort and contract provisions, UMG asserts that they cannot properly be pursued under federal statutes.
In UMG’s view, the state-law framework provides the exclusive route for such disputes, barring Rivers from shoehorning her claims into federal court.
Additionally, UMG takes aim at the structure of Rivers’s complaint itself, describing it as an “improper group pleading.”
Of the more than 1,000 paragraphs in the original filing, UMG notes, only ten actually mention the company by name—and even those references, it insists, have no real bearing on the core allegations against Diddy.
By lumping dozens of disparate entities together under a single, sprawling complaint, Rivers has failed to articulate specific facts showing how UMG’s conduct contributed to her claimed injuries, UMG argues.
Finally, UMG points out that the few paragraphs referencing the label do not tie its actions to any of Rivers’s specific allegations of mistreatment.
In effect, UMG maintains, it is nothing more than a legal “stray,” caught up in a broader dispute that centers squarely on Diddy himself.
For these reasons, the company has urged the court to dismiss all claims against it with prejudice. As of now, however, the judge has not yet issued a ruling on UMG’s motion.
