(NewsNation) — A $100 million judgment against hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs was set aside by a Michigan judge this week after it was determined that a lawsuit claiming Combs sexually assaulted a man in 1997 was not properly served.
The judge set aside the judgment against Combs — who remains behind bars on sex trafficking and racketeering charges in New York — after also ruling the man who brought it would likely not prevail due to the statute of limitations on sexual assault.
The Michigan case stems from a 1997 incident that led Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith to file a civil lawsuit against Combs in June. Cardello-Smith is currently serving up to 75 years in prison after he was sentenced in 2008 on first-degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping charges, the Detroit Free Press reported.
Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs is ‘on suicide watch’: Former inmate
The lawsuit claims Combs drugged and then sexually assaulted Cardello-Smith as other consensual sex involving women was taking place, according to media reports.
Cardello-Smith claims Combs sexually assaulted him during a party at a hotel in 1997 before the two men, along with high-ranking Michigan law enforcement officials and other police officers, conspired not to prosecute Combs for the assault. The newspaper reported that Cardello-Smith would go to prison for 14 sexual assaults allegedly committed by Combs to protect his family from harm by Combs’ representatives or law enforcement.
Earlier this month, a judge awarded Cardello-Smith the $100 million judgment against Combs after the rap mogul didn’t show up in court to contend the case. The judge also issued a temporary restraining order that prevented Combs from selling any personal assets that he could use to pay for the judgment.
However, this week, the judge ruled the lawsuit was not properly served. The lawsuit was mailed to a home that Combs owns in Los Angeles, but the judge ruled it was not mailed in compliance with court rules, the Free Press reported.
Who else could be charged in the Diddy investigation?
The law does not require lawsuits to be delivered to a potential defendant’s primary address but does require the sender to mail the lawsuit for restricted delivery.
In court this week, Cardello-Smith, who is representing himself in the case, told Combs’ lawyer to tell his client that the matter was not resolved.
According to Metro Times in Detroit, Cardello-Smith told the court he would file a motion to reconsider this week’s ruling. The judge has set a Nov. 4 hearing in the case.