Sean “Diddy” Combs’ long-running legal entanglement with “Making the Band” alum Sara Rivers appears to be approaching its end after a major court ruling stripped nearly all of her claims from the case. A New York judge has now dismissed the bulk of the charges Rivers filed earlier this year, dealing a significant blow to her lawsuit against the embattled music mogul, his companies, and even members of his family.
Rivers, who gained public recognition in the early 2000s as a contestant on Combs’ MTV reality competition “Making the Band 2” and later as a member of the hip-hop group Da Band, first filed suit in February. She accused Combs of “unwanted touching,” fostering a hostile work environment, and committing fraud during the show’s production. Her complaint also named several of Combs’ business associates and companies, including his mother, Janice Combs, alleging their involvement in the misconduct.
The lawsuit laid out a sprawling set of 22 claims that spanned serious accusations — from racketeering and assault to forced labor and false imprisonment. However, in an August 14 ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Jed S. Rakoff dismissed 21 of those 22 counts with prejudice. That legal designation means Rivers is permanently barred from bringing those particular claims again in any future case.
Only one allegation remains unresolved: that Combs violated the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act through alleged sexual abuse of Rivers. Judge Rakoff did not decide whether that single charge will be dismissed with or without prejudice, saying he would wait for a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to clarify how that specific city law should be applied. That decision will determine whether Rivers can attempt to renew her claim later.
For Combs’ legal team, the judge’s move was a decisive victory. “From the outset, we have said these claims were meritless, time-barred and legally deficient,” attorney Aaron Wolff said in a statement. “The court agreed, finding no legal basis to allow them to proceed. We are pleased the court carefully analyzed and swiftly dismissed these baseless claims.”
The developments come against the backdrop of Combs’ own deepening legal troubles. The 54-year-old music mogul, arrested in September 2024, remains in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He has been awaiting sentencing following a high-profile summer trial in which he faced charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. In July, the jury convicted him on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution while acquitting him of the remaining charges.
Rivers’ accusations trace back to her time filming “Making the Band 2,” a music competition that chronicled Combs’ search to assemble a new hip-hop group. According to her February lawsuit, a confrontation with Combs began during a trip to Washington, D.C., when he allegedly demanded she drink a cocktail he had given her. Rivers said she refused the drink, an act that reportedly drew his ire. Around that same time, she claimed Combs chastised her and her fellow Da Band members for what he perceived as a lack of drive and initiative.
She recalled that Combs told them they weren’t making use of his recording studio, Daddy’s House, in New York City. Taking his criticism to heart, Rivers decided to go to the studio alone to record music. It was during this solo visit, she alleged, that the incident took place. She claimed Combs abruptly approached her, backed her into a corner, and ran his left hand across her breasts. After the encounter, Rivers said she left the studio “in shock and disbelief” over what had just occurred.
In her lawsuit, Rivers stated that the alleged sexual abuse caused her lasting harm, including monetary losses, physical injury, pain and suffering, and severe psychological and emotional distress.
Her account was consistent with other allegations she made earlier this year in a televised interview. In January, Rivers appeared in the Peacock documentary “Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy,” a program that delved into Combs’ rise to fame and the serious accusations that have since overshadowed his career. The series, which featured interviews with former colleagues and insiders, painted a portrait of a music mogul whose public image masked what some described as an aggressive and intimidating leadership style.
Rivers told the documentary’s producers that Combs was prone to volatile outbursts and often humiliated her and her bandmates. One remark she recalled stood out for its disturbing tone. “When he got angry with one of my band members, he said, ‘You make me so mad, I want to eat your flesh,’” Rivers claimed. She described the comment as both bizarre and frightening, emblematic of the kind of unpredictable behavior she says she endured.
The singer also accused Combs of sexual misconduct in the special, saying he “touched me in a place that he shouldn’t have” during a one-on-one incident. Her voice wavered as she recounted the experience, admitting that speaking publicly about it brought on anxiety. “That was inappropriate, and I felt intimidated,” she said. “I’m definitely nervous. … I haven’t said anything for so long, and it’s built up.”
At the time the documentary aired, Rivers’ legal action was still in its early stages. Her lawsuit attempted to link her experiences on the MTV reality series to a broader pattern of alleged abuse, fraud, and exploitation in Combs’ professional empire. But as the case made its way through the court system, Judge Rakoff’s dismissal of nearly all the charges drastically narrowed its scope.
Legal analysts following the case note that “dismissed with prejudice” is a serious hurdle for any plaintiff. It doesn’t just mean the current case is over for those claims — it means the plaintiff is prohibited from filing them again, even in a different court. In effect, for those 21 charges, Rivers has exhausted her legal options.
The lone remaining claim, however, is tethered to the still-evolving interpretation of the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act. The law allows individuals to sue over acts of violence motivated by gender bias, but its parameters have been a matter of legal debate. By waiting for guidance from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Rakoff is essentially pressing pause on deciding whether Rivers can continue to pursue that specific allegation.
Combs’ legal victory in this civil suit comes while his criminal cases continue to draw intense media scrutiny. His September 2024 arrest was a turning point in the public narrative around him. Once celebrated as a music industry innovator and entrepreneur — a figure who helped launch the careers of stars like The Notorious B.I.G. and Mase — Combs has in the past year become the center of a wave of accusations involving sexual abuse, trafficking, and coercion.
The two convictions in July have left him facing significant prison time, although his acquittals on other charges may complicate sentencing. Legal experts suggest that while Rivers’ civil suit dismissal may be a public relations win for his defense, it does little to alleviate the gravity of his criminal situation.
For Rivers, the ruling is a setback in her quest to hold Combs accountable through the civil system. However, she could still see a narrow path forward depending on how the appeals court interprets the gender-motivated violence statute. If the court determines the law applies to her allegations, Rivers could have an opportunity to revive at least part of her case.
Regardless of the legal outcome, her decision to speak publicly — first in the documentary and later in court filings — has positioned her among a growing number of women who have accused high-profile men in the entertainment industry of misconduct. While some of those cases have ended in settlements or convictions, others, like Rivers’, illustrate how difficult it can be to prevail in court, especially when allegations date back decades and hinge on disputed personal accounts.
Combs has consistently denied wrongdoing in all civil and criminal matters, framing the accusations against him as opportunistic or unfounded. His lawyers have portrayed Rivers’ lawsuit as an attempt to capitalize on the broader media storm surrounding his arrest and criminal trial. They have also emphasized the lack of corroborating evidence, particularly for incidents alleged to have occurred more than 20 years ago.
Still, the court of public opinion remains divided. For some, the pattern of allegations against Combs from multiple women and over many years suggests that Rivers’ account fits within a troubling context. For others, the lack of legal success in many of these claims reinforces skepticism about their validity.
What is certain is that this case, like many involving celebrity defendants, exists at the intersection of law, media, and public perception. Even a near-total dismissal by a judge will not erase the public record of Rivers’ allegations, nor will it end the ongoing conversation about how powerful figures in the entertainment industry are held accountable — or not — for their behavior.
As Combs sits in federal custody awaiting the next phase of his criminal proceedings, the once-glamorous image he cultivated — as a hit-making producer, fashion entrepreneur, and cultural icon — has been largely overshadowed by the steady drip of damaging headlines. For Rivers, the path forward remains uncertain, with her future legal options tied to a pending appellate decision.
Whether or not she continues her fight in court, her story has already been told to millions through documentary footage and news coverage, ensuring that her version of events is part of the historical record of Combs’ controversial legacy. For now, both sides are locked in a standoff: Combs’ team celebrating a legal win in the dismissal of most claims, and Rivers holding on to the possibility that the last unresolved allegation could yet give her a day in court.
In the world of celebrity justice, such outcomes are rarely the final chapter. And as with many high-profile legal battles, what happens next may depend as much on the slow grind of appellate rulings as it does on the next explosive headline.
