Jay-Z‘s legal team is going after Tony Buzbee for alleged misconduct … claiming he tried to extort the rapper and, when he couldn’t, he then proceeded to sue him.
The star’s lawyer Alex Spiro filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss a “Jane Doe” lawsuit against Jay-Z and Diddy … specifically calling out Buzbee for bringing the legal action.
According to Spiro’s motion, Buzbee initially described Jay-Z as a prominent person in the lawsuit without naming him — Spiro’s accusing the Texas-based attorney of demanding money to keep Jay’s identity under wraps.
Spiro says his client refused … prompting Buzbee to file an amended suit revealing Jay’s identity and alleged role in the alleged rape of a 13-year-old way back in 2000.
TMZ.com
As we told you … NBC News released a report after the lawsuit was filed, claiming there were multiple inaccuracies in the accuser’s story — from where Jay-Z and Diddy partied after the Video Music Awards that year, to her father not remembering that he picked her up after the alleged assault.
Spiro also says Buzbee did little to no fact-checking of his client’s story … shirking his legal obligations while trying to throw the blame on the rest of his law firm.
The motion highlights Buzbee’s past alleged misconduct too … including a “track record of employing suspect tactics to gain an unfair advantage in the course of litigation.” They even mention an old case Buzbee was involved in where he was admonished for statements he made about former pro baseball player Scott Erickson.
Buzbee represents multiple alleged victims who have filed civil lawsuits accusing Diddy of sex crimes.
Spiro’s asking for a preservation order to protect key evidence from being destroyed and for the court to strike the complaint against Jay-Z.
TMZ.com
Tony Buzbee says … “They are really reaching, to the point of being ridiculous. They are now asking the court to dismiss because I was supposedly ‘admonished’ during my defense of a client in a double murder case in LA? Is that how the case will be decided — based on some allegations from another unrelated case several years ago? If so, should we then examine and determine how many times Quinn Emanuel has been ‘admonished?’”
He continues, “Or maybe we should look at the current conduct of defense counsel, who has flouted the rules and knows that people working on his client’s behalf are paying investigators to sue my law firm? These people keep going to new lows and have a lot of nerve to be throwing around reckless and baseless accusations.”
Comments are closed