Case 1:24-cv-01457-JPO Document 30 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TYRONE A. BLACKBURN
`_____
`MEMBER OF
`NY, DC & NJ BAR
`______
`FEDERAL MEMBERSHIP
`EDNY, NDNY, SDNY, ILND & DNJ
`______
`1242 East 80th Street, 3rd Floor
`
`
`
`
`Brooklyn, New York 11236
`
`
`VIA PACER:
`Hon. J. Paul Oetken
`Thurgood Marshall, United States Courthouse
`40 Foley Square
`New York, NY 10007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`March 28, 2024
`
`Re: Jones v. Combs, et al.; Case No. 24-1457
`
`Dear Judge Oetken,
`
`As you know, this firm represents the Plaintiff Rodney Jones, (“Plaintiff”) in the above-
`referenced case. This letter addresses the notice from the Clerk of the Court regarding the Second
`Amended Complaint and the letter filed by the defendants dated March 28, 2024. As I indicated
`in my letter dated March 23, 2024, and March 27, 2024, the second amended complaint was filed
`in response to the Rule 11 letter dated March 4, 2024. Pursuant to the 21-day safe harbor rule,
`Plaintiff has 21 days to withdraw or amend the allegedly deficient pleading. Plaintiff amended the
`"allegedly deficient" pleading on March 25, 2024, on the 21st day of the 21-day Safe Harbor
`window. On March 26, 2024, the Clerk issued a refiling notice due to an error in the Second
`Amended Pleadings heading. On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff corrected the document and refiled it.
`The Clerk has issued a notice stating that the Court needs to provide leave to amend.
`
`
`Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend, as the amendment is being made pursuant to
`the 21 safe harbor rule of what Plaintiff viewed as a demand to amend or withdraw. Federal Rule
`of Civil Procedure provides that a party may amend a pleading "once as a matter of course" within
`21 days of receiving a responsive pleading under Rule 12(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). If 21
`days have passed since the filing of the pleading, a party may amend the pleading "only with the
`opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "The court should
`freely give leave when justice so requires." Id. Sassi v. Dutchess Cnty., No. 9:16-CV-1450, 2017
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58016, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. April 17, 2017).
`
`
`Defendants have indicated that they have no intentions of giving Plaintiff consent to amend
`the pleading, even though they sent a threat of sanctions letter demanding that the complaint be
`withdrawn or amended. As Plaintiff sees no reason to withdraw the complaint against Defendants
`UMG, Motown, or Lucian Grainge, Plaintiff has opted to amend the pleading. It is clear from the
`Second Amended Pleading that Defendants either negligently or intentionally funded the activities
`of Defendant Sean Combs. Before filing his pleading, Plaintiff only had the word of Mr. Combs,
`the evidence in his possession, and his personal experience living with Mr. Combs from September
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01457-JPO Document 30 Filed 03/28/24 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`2022 to November 2023. Ms. Habtemariam’s declaration provided Plaintiff with the confirmation
`he needed concerning the business partnership and the funding of the Love Album that Mr. Combs
`had shared with Plaintiff directly.
`
`
`Is it also clear that many of the claims raised by Plaintiff in his Second Amended Pleading
`are accurate, as the events of March 25, 2024, have revealed: 1. Mr. Combs’ drug mule, Brandan
`Paul, was arrested in Miami, Florida, for cocaine possession, and the cocaine was in his carry-on
`luggage, as Plaintiff stated in his amended pleading. 2. Mr. Combs is being investigated for
`possible sex trafficking, as Plaintiff has alleged, and thoroughly detailed with exhibits and
`examples in his pleading. 3. The raid produced guns in both locations, as Plaintiff detailed in his
`pleadings.
`
`
`If the Court requires a formal motion or letter motion so Plaintiff can lay out how the
`amendment against the moving Defendant would not be futile nor filed in bad faith, we will gladly
`do so. The defendants were Sean Combs, general business Partner, as that term is defined by the
`Courts in the State of New York. A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry
`on as co-owners of a business for profit (Partnership Law § 10 [1]). When there is no written
`partnership agreement between the parties, the Court must determine whether a partnership existed
`from the conduct, intention, and relationship between the parties (Brodsky v Stadlen, 138 AD2d
`662, 663, 526 N.Y.S.2d 478). No one characteristic of a business relationship is determinative in
`finding the existence of a partnership-in-fact (Id.). Factors to be considered by the Court include
`the sharing of profits and losses, the ownership of partnership assets, joint management and
`control, joint liability to creditors, the intention of the parties, compensation, the contribution of
`capital, and loans to the organization (Id.). DeCristofaro v. Nest Seekers E. End, LLC, 2017 NY
`Slip Op 50074(U), ¶ 7, 54 Misc. 3d 1209(A), 52 N.Y.S.3d 246 (Sup. Ct.)
`
`
`Here, the Defendants are desperately trying to rewrite history to distance themselves from
`Mr. Combs. By their own admission, they funded the creation of the Love album and partnered
`with him to establish Love Records. These are their words, not the Plaintiffs'.
`
`
`Aside from their public statements, their actions indicate a general business partnership
`under New York State Law. Profit sharing is one of the two "most important" factors in
`determining the existence of a partnership, along with control over the business (Stephens v Three
`Finger Black Shale Partnership, 580 SW3d 687, 713 [Tex App 2019]). To determine whether the
`parties expressed an intent to be in a partnership, the Court may look at their writings and conduct
`(Westside Wrecker Serv. v Skafi, 361 SW3d 153, 168 [Tex App 2011]). Evidence of expressions
`of intent could include the parties' statements that they are partners, a signed partnership
`agreement, or one party holding the other out as a partner (Westside, 361 SW3d at 168). This
`inquiry is "separate and apart from the other factors [evidencing partnership] and should only
`include evidence not specifically probative of the other factors" (id.). Offshore Expl. & Prod.,
`LLC v. De Jong Capital, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 50502(U), ¶¶ 8-9, 78 Misc. 3d 1241(A), 188
`N.Y.S.3d 915 (Sup. Ct.).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01457-JPO Document 30 Filed 03/28/24 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`As detailed in the letter dated March 27, 2024, Plaintiff determined that UMG and Motown
`Records had a general business partnership based on his conversations with Mr. Combs and the
`public statements made by Defendants on their websites and on their LinkedIn business pages. In
`the relevant part, the Defendant’s website states the following:
`
`“DIDDY AND MOTOWN PARTNER UP”
`“Diddy will be dropping his latest album on our label later this summer. On top of that,
`we’re helping establish his latest and most exciting venture yet: Love Records.”
`
`
`On their LinkedIn page, which the Court can access from the following link, Defendant UMG
`states the following:
`
`“Love Records 🤝 Motown Records
`Diddy’s new album will be the first release from
`Love Records, in partnership with Motown."
`
`
`
`These quotes are not one-offs. In the interest of time, Plaintiff has decided not to inundate
`the court with all the newspaper and magazine coverage that this partnership received. The
`plaintiffs' amended complaint outlines the Defendants' liability as a business partner. Defendants
`cannot have it both ways. You cannot profit off Mr. Combs at the expense of victims like Plaintiff,
`but when the Federal Investigators kick down his door, they try to cut and run and pretend that
`they only had limited involvement with Mr. Combs.
`The Defendants pearl clutch is breathtaking. Defendants knew for YEARS that Mr. Combs
`had a propensity for violence. As detailed in the amended complaint, Mr. Combs assaulted their
`former executive, Steve Stoute. According to former UMG executive Steve Stoute, “Combs and
`two men barged into his New York City office and attacked him with a champagne bottle.” Combs
`was charged with second-degree assault and criminal mischief. UMG knew this and did not end
`their business partnership with him; in fact, they turned a blind eye and continued their business
`partnership for several years after the attack.
`If not for Cassie Ventura’s November 16, 2023, lawsuit, UMG’s history of running to Mr.
`Combs for partnership opportunities would have continued.
`
`Plaintiff Stands By The Claims Raised In The First Amended Complaint:
`The Plaintiff was clear when he said he witnessed Mr. Grainge and Ms. Habtemariam at
`Mr. Combs' homes and parties associated with the Love Album. Of course, Plaintiff did not meet
`them and speak with them; that was not his statement. He said Mr. Combs identified them and
`used them to impress and entice Plaintiff to engage in activities that Plaintiff did not want to do.
`This was one of the many tools Plaintiff identified as grooming mechanisms implemented by Mr.
`Combs.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01457-JPO Document 30 Filed 03/28/24 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`Once Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter denying ever being present at Mr. Combs’ residence
`or parties associated with the Love Album, Plaintiff took them at their word and amended the
`pleading as he was required. As Plaintiff stated throughout his pleadings, Mr. Combs drugged him
`through laced alcohol at these parties. Plaintiff has woken up next to several women not
`remembering what happened the night before. If Mr. Combs lied to the Plaintiff concerning the
`identity of the attendees at his parties, and the Plaintiff later learned from those alleged attendees
`that they were misidentified, then the Plaintiff has an obligation to correct the record, which is
`what he did.
`
`
`This does not remove UMG, Motown, or Lucian Grainge's liability concerning their
`unchecked funding of the Love Album and Love Records, Inc. It does not matter what document
`they produce evidencing the terms of their relationship with Mr. Combs. It is important to
`thoroughly assess what is written versus what was done. Plaintiff strongly believes that the Court
`will soon learn that the Defendants are engaging in a game of smoke and mirrors.
`
`
`We respectfully request leave to amend so Plaintiff can file his second amended complaint,
`which will include some of the issues they wanted to be cured, as well as the addition of Cuba
`Gooding, Jr. as a defendant. We thank the Court for its time and attention to this matter.
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CC: All attorneys of record via ECF.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Second amended complaint and attachments.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`____________________________________
`Tyrone A. Blackburn, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`