Snoop Dogg Moves to Dismiss ‘Frivolous’ Sexual Assault Lawsuit

On Thursday, legal representatives for Snoop Dogg filed a new motion to dismiss an amended lawsuit in its entirety that had accused Snoop, né Calvin Broadus, of sexual assault.

Representatives of Snoop told Jezebel that they found the lawsuit, which accused the rapper of forcing a woman to perform oral sex on him in a bathroom and masturbating in front of her, “frivolous.” The lawsuit was originally filed by a dancer, referred to in the case as “Jane Doe,” who was allegedly employed by Snoop as a concert performer, days before Snoop Dogg’s Los Angeles Super Bowl performance in February.

In the suit, the woman alleges that she and her friend had attended Snoop Dogg’s show at Club Heat Ultra Lounge, a night club in Anaheim, CA, in 2013. They were led to the VIP room, where they met Donald Campbell, aka Bishop Don Magic Juan, Snoop’s friend and “spiritual adviser.” Jane Doe claims Campbell drove her to his home against her wishes and forced her to perform oral sex on him. He then allegedly accompanied her to a filming studio for Snoop’s YouTube news series, where she could potentially be picked for the part of “Weather Girl,” telling her, “Snoop wants you here,” and, “This will make you go viral.” There, Jane Doe says Snoop cornered her in the bathroom and sexually assaulted her. In the initial filing, she said she believed she was being “groomed” by Campbell to have sex with Snoop.

According to the new filing in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Snoop’s legal team found several “deficiencies,” including that Jane Doe’s claims of sexual assault, which allegedly took place on May 9, 2013, had passed the statute of limitations in California. The filing further attempts to discredit the suit by picking apart quid pro quo claims that Jane Doe had been promised further employment by Snoop for engaging in sexual activity. His legal team told us: “Mr. Broadus only allegedly said ‘put it in your mouth’ during the alleged incident,” as opposed to making promises regarding future employment.

Snoop’s team’s filing also noted that the companies owned by the rapper that were listed as additional defendants in the original complaint did not exist at the time of the alleged incident, claimed that any insistence of “prostitution” was unfounded, that the allegations did not meet the federal definition of “sex trafficking,” and said the allegations in full were “contradictory and unbelievable.” Snoop’s lawyers argued that Jane Doe had accompanied Campbell to the studio voluntarily and that there were no promises made.

Regardless of any quid pro quo exchange, Jane Doe’s amended complaint notes that Snoop has “a long history of sexually abusing women, retaliating against and threatening them when they complain, and terminating employees who object to his unlawful conduct,” going so far as to predict that Snoop would countersue the woman for “extortion” in a retaliatory effort.

The parties previously attempted to resolve the dispute privately but moved to a public forum after Snoop posted a threatening message on his Instagram. The amended complaint also included new defamation claims purporting that someone in Snoop’s camp had released the name of the anonymous woman to a member of the press, noting the retaliatory tone of Snoop’s Instagram story.

Jane Doe’s legal representation, Matt E.O. Finkelberg of Derek Smith Law Group LLP, did not respond to our request for comment other than to refer us to the amended complaint, which reads:

“Our client had the courage to stand up for her rights and decided that her story could no longer be silenced. Our client does not have the power of over 60 million Instagram followers or the elite celebrity status of ‘Snoop Dogg’ and everything that comes with it. She is just one woman who was brave enough to stand up for herself. We applaud her bravery and hope that Mr. Broadus and his spokesperson’s actions do not further deter women from coming forward against their sexual harassers.”