{"id":6717,"date":"2025-07-02T04:32:15","date_gmt":"2025-07-02T04:32:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/jay-z-lawsuit-for-defamation-extortion-against-tony-buzbee-dismissed\/"},"modified":"2025-07-02T04:32:15","modified_gmt":"2025-07-02T04:32:15","slug":"jay-z-lawsuit-for-defamation-extortion-against-tony-buzbee-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/jay-z-lawsuit-for-defamation-extortion-against-tony-buzbee-dismissed\/","title":{"rendered":"Jay-Z Lawsuit for Defamation & Extortion Against Tony Buzbee Dismissed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tA<\/span> judge has struck down Jay-Z\u2019s extortion and defamation lawsuit against Tony Buzbee<\/strong>, the personal injury attorney who filed shocking rape allegations against the rap icon, though the duo\u2019s bitter legal battle is far from over.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe order from Monday (June 30) tosses the claims brought by Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) in Los Angeles court against Buzbee, who alleged in a now-dropped civil lawsuit that the rapper and Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs raped an anonymous 13-year-old girl together at an after-party following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards.<\/p>\n

\n\tJay-Z vehemently denied those allegations and sued Buzbee for extortion and defamation last fall. There has since been lengthy litigation over whether to strike Jay-Z\u2019s lawsuit under California\u2019s anti-SLAPP statute, which allows for the quick dismissal of claims that threaten constitutionally protected speech.<\/p>\n

\n\tJudge Mark H. Epstein repeatedly flip-flopped over what to do with Buzbee\u2019s anti-SLAPP motion, saying in various tentative orders that he was inclined to keep the lawsuit at least partially alive. He has now changed his mind, and Monday\u2019s final decision strikes the claims entirely.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe judge says Jay-Z\u2019s extortion claims must fail because Buzbee was within his rights as a lawyer to demand a settlement payment from the rapper before suing him for rape last year.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cSelling silence for money in the civil context is not extortion; it is a settlement with a non-disclosure element,\u201d writes Judge Epstein. \u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tJay-Z\u2019s defamation claims, which take issue with Buzbee\u2019s statements to the press and social media activity, are a closer call. Judge Epstein has determined that these claims must be dismissed too because they don\u2019t meet the so-called \u201cactual malice\u201d standard; that is, Jay-Z has not shown that Buzbee knowingly lied about the rape accusations.<\/p>\n

\n\tJudge Epstein says the only evidence that Jay-Z submitted on this point is inadmissible: declarations from private investigators who claim they spoke to the anonymous rape accuser, known as Jane Doe; and that she said Jay-Z was not involved in her assault but that Buzbee pressured her to name the rapper.<\/p>\n

\n\tBuzbee and Doe have both denied the truth of these statements, saying the victim was scared and intimidated by private investigators who showed up at her house. Regardless, Monday\u2019s order deems this new evidence cannot be considered due to the legal hearsay rule.<\/p>\n

\n\tHowever, Judge Epstein\u2019s order\u00a0effectively invites Jay-Z to appeal the admissibility decision by saying\u00a0that if this evidence were admissible, the situation would \u201cchange dramatically.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThen there would be some evidence not only that Carter had nothing to do with any sexual assault on Doe, but that Buzbee knew it in the sense that (according to Doe) it was Buzbee that kept pressing to get Doe to implicate Carter,\u201d writes Judge Epstein. \u201cThat pressure, coupled with the statement by Buzbee that he had investigated the claims, would be enough to support an inference of actual malice.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tJudge Epstein says himself that he\u2019s not sure whether he reached the right conclusion, noting at the end of his 65-page order that it\u2019s \u201cpainfully obvious that the court is struggling with this motion.\u201d If Jay-Z\u2019s efforts to appeal the admissibility decision were successful,\u00a0he could\u00a0get his defamation claims reinstated.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe court is not wholly satisfied that this is the outcome that best serves the legislative and constitutional doctrines,\u201d writes Judge Epstein. \u201cIt will be for the Court of Appeal to determine whether the court got it right or wrong, and whether the suit ought to go forward or ought to end. Stay tuned.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tJay-Z quickly took Judge Epstein up on his suggestion and appealed the order on Tuesday (July 1). <\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cWe are surprised and disappointed by this ruling which turns on the misapplication of California law on the admissibility of the investigators\u2019 statements,\u201d says Jay-Z\u2019s attorney Alex Spiro<\/strong> in a statement shared with Billboard<\/em>. \u201cWhat does it say about our justice system if someone can knowingly bring about completely false claims of the most heinous nature imaginable against an innocent individual and get away with it on a technicality?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tBuzbee, meanwhile, is celebrating Monday\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe court rightly dismissed the case because it has no merit,\u201d writes Buzbee in a Tuesday email to Billboard<\/em>. \u201cBuzbee wins again.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn addition to the upcoming appeal of Monday\u2019s ruling, Jay-Z is still pursuing a malicious prosecution lawsuit against both Buzbee and Doe in Alabama federal court. Buzbee also has his own ongoing litigation accusing Jay-Z\u2019s company Roc Nation of encouraging and even bribing former clients to sue the lawyer for malpractice.<\/p>\n

\n\tThis story was updated at 4:59 p.m. ET to reflect that Jay-Z has appealed the decision.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A judge has struck down Jay-Z\u2019s extortion and defamation lawsuit against Tony Buzbee, the personal injury attorney who filed shocking rape allegations against the rap icon, though the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6718,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[5159,720,2059,5953,3547,303,5158],"class_list":["post-6717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-buzbee","tag-defamation","tag-dismissed","tag-extortion","tag-jayz","tag-lawsuit","tag-tony"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6717\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6718"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}