LOS ANGELES — A woman suing famed Long Beach rapper Snoop Dogg, his associates and a number of his businesses while accusing them of sex trafficking, sexual harassment, assault and battery has asked the court to dismiss her lawsuit against them.
The woman’s attorney on Wednesday filed a notice of dismissal to dismiss the lawsuit “in its entirety,” according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. Under federal law, the notice allows for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, meaning she can refile it at a later time.
A judge approved the notice on Thursday and dismissed the case, according to court records obtained Friday by the L.A. Times.
The judge’s order comes about two weeks after the “Drop It Like It’s Hot” emcee, real name Calvin Broadus, also filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed altogether and a legal back-and-forth between the two parties. During that time, the woman did not contest the “Gin and Juice” rapper’s motion to dismiss.
No reason for the dismissal was given and no settlement was reached, The Times has confirmed.
“It is not surprising that the plaintiff dismissed her complaint against the defendants. Her complaint was full of false allegations and deficiencies,” a spokesman for Snoop said Friday in an email to The Times.
The woman’s attorney, Matt E.O. Finkelberg, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The 50-year-old musician has denied the allegations made by the woman and previously said that her lawsuit was an attempt to “extort” him before his high-profile Super Bowl LVI performance in February.
The woman was identified in the lawsuit as a Jane Doe who worked as a professional dancer, model, host and spokesmodel. She also claimed to have worked for Broadus and his co-defendant, rapper and former pimp Don “Magic” Juan (born Donald Campbell), and accused them of coercing her into oral sex on separate occasions in 2013 — allegations Snoop denied.
In the rapper’s motion to dismiss, his attorneys argued that the woman failed to state a legitimate claim against him under federal rules of civil procedure. The woman’s lawsuit also accused Snoop and the other defendants of defamation, false light and intentional and negligent inflictions of emotional distress, as well as a number of labor code violations.
“The plaintiff has named Mr. Broadus’ companies as defendants in part of this alleged scheme, including repeated claims that they ‘assaulted’ and tried to ‘prostitute’ her. However, none of these companies existed at the time of the alleged incident,” a spokesperson for the rapper said in an email to The Times last month.
“You cannot sue a person or entity for something that happened before they existed,” the spokesperson added. “The lack of their existence at the time of the alleged incident is readily discoverable in the public domain. Nonetheless, plaintiff and her counsel continue to make these false allegations, which only undermine their own credibility.”
———
