Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Judge Torres Refuses to “Fast-Track” Abuse Case In Response to “Relentless” Filings from Jay-Z’s Counsel

By Charles Michael on December 27, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In an Order yesterday, Judge Torres took issue with the “relentless” filings of counsel for Sean Carter (known professionally as Jay-Z) in a case accusing Mr. Carter and Sean Combs of abusing the plaintiff, a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

Mr. Carter was added to the case in an amendment on December 9, and his lawyer filed letters on December 9, December 10, and December 13, followed by an emergency motion on December 18, all of which argued that the case was meritless and attacked counsel for the plaintiff (who, for his part, responded with a letter on December 20).

Judge Torres was not amused by the “litany” of filings by Mr. Carter’s counsel and suggested that they were a disservice to Mr. Carter:

Since Carter’s attorney first appeared in this case seventeen days ago, he has submitted a litany of letters and motions attempting to impugn the character of Plaintiff’s lawyer, many of them expounding on the purported “urgency” of this case.

Carter’s lawyer’s relentless filing of combative motions containing inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks is inappropriate, a waste of judicial resources, and a tactic unlikely to benefit his client. The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it.

Moreover, although Carter’s attorney assails Plaintiff’s lawyer as having a “chronic inability to follow the rules,” Carter’s counsel has failed to abide by this Court’s clear rules. Under the Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, and with limited exceptions, “[a] pre-motion letter is required prior to the filing of any motion.”

Although Carter’s attorney stated that he “intend[ed] to file immediately a motion to strike the first amended complaint under [Rule 12(f)],” he did not give Plaintiff the requisite five business days to respond, wait for the Court to set a motion schedule, or state whether any exception to the Court’s Individual Practices applied. This is unacceptable.

Photo of Charles Michael Charles Michael

Charles Michael is an accomplished commercial litigator who resolutely defends clients in high stakes disputes and arbitrations. He is also experienced in regulatory and criminal investigations, and represents clients under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority…

Charles Michael is an accomplished commercial litigator who resolutely defends clients in high stakes disputes and arbitrations. He is also experienced in regulatory and criminal investigations, and represents clients under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Read more about Charles MichaelEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Business and Commercial
  • Blog:
    SDNY Blog
  • Organization:
    Steptoe LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo