Diddy ‘Making the Band’ Sexual Assault Accuser’s Appeal Dismissed: Here’s Why

An appeal filed by Making the Band contestant Sara Rivers aimed at reviving her $60 million sexual assault lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs has been abruptly dismissed — a move that came after her lawyers failed to file basic court forms.

Rivers sued Combs earlier this year over claims that he harassed and groped her during the filming of the 2000s MTV reality show, but a federal judge ruled this summer that she’d waited far too long to sue. After that ruling, she quickly filed an appeal aimed at overturning it.

But last month, according to court records reviewed by Billboard, the appeals court dismissed Rivers’ case. The reason? Her attorneys failed to meet a required deadline to file basic procedural forms that are filed at the start of any appeal.

That failure means that the earlier ruling dismissing Rivers’ case is now final, and most of her case is now closed. A small element of the case has not yet been fully dismissed, but the majority of her case was dismissed permanently.

Ariel Mitchell, the attorney who represents Rivers and failed to make the required filings, did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (Nov. 20). Reps for Combs also did not return a request for comment.

Rivers, who became a member of hip-hop group Da Band, sued Combs in February, claiming he had cornered her in a recording studio and “ran his left hand across her breasts.” She also claimed that he later blackballed her in the music industry in retaliation for rebuffing his advances.

The case was one of dozens of civil lawsuits filed against Combs over the past two years alongside his blockbuster federal criminal case. Following a two-month trial, Combs was acquitted last month on the most serious charges of racketeering (RICO) and sex-trafficking in that case, though he was found guilty on two lesser counts of interstate prostitution. Last month, he was sentenced to four years in prison.

In August, Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that Rivers had filed her case far too late. He said allegations centered in the 2000s were clearly filed years after the statutes of limitations had expired.

“It is important to remember the many positive purposes served by statutes of limitations,” the judge wrote. “They promote justice by preventing surprises through plaintiffs’ revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.”

Judge Rakoff said Rivers had invoked a “hodgepodge” of arguments for why the time limits should be lifted in her case, including that she was afraid of retaliation from Combs and his business empire. But the judge said that wasn’t enough.

“While Rivers does allege that she experienced a general fear of retaliation preventing her from speaking out against Combs, general claims of psychological stress cannot give rise to duress tolling,” the judge said, referring to the technical term for such a delay.

Rivers quickly appealed, setting the stage for a lengthy battle before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. But after making her initial case filings, Mitchell never filed another document in the case — even after being warned to do so.

In early October, the court warned her that failure to submit Form C and Form D (a basic case synopsis and disclosure regarding transcripts, respectively) would result in the case being dismissed in two weeks. Mitchell never filed those forms, and the case was duly dismissed on Oct. 17.

Mitchell is the same attorney that Combs is currently suing for defamation over allegations raised by Courtney Burgess, another one of her clients. In TV interviews, Burgess claimed to have videos showing Combs in sexual encounters with celebrities — a claim Mitchell later echoed. Combs says such videos don’t exist and that he was defamed by Mitchell and Burgess’ “outlandish claims.” That case is pending.