Sean “Diddy” Combs’ $100 million defamation lawsuit survived a major attempt to dismiss it less than two weeks ago.
Now one of the defendants is trying a different route — arguing Combs’ own previous representations about his Florida ties could knock the case out of federal court.
The filing came the same day three of Combs’ attorneys appeared before U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan seeking to leave the case amid a dispute over unpaid legal bills.
Together, the developments create new uncertainty around Combs’ lawsuit against Mitchell, Courtney Burgess and Nexstar Media Inc. over allegations aired on NewsNation in 2024.
Cronan on Sept. 4 rejected Mitchell’s previous attempt to dismiss the lawsuit and allowed part of Combs’ claim against Nexstar to continue.
Mitchell’s new argument is different.
Combs’ amended complaint says he “presently resides in Brooklyn, New York,” while identifying Mitchell as a Miami resident. The lawsuit relies on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires opposing parties to be citizens of different states.
Ariel Mitchell argues that Sean “Diddy” Combs remained domiciled in Florida while detained in Brooklyn — and that if both were Florida citizens when the lawsuit was filed, the federal court lacked the required diversity of citizenship.
“Plaintiff cannot have it both ways.” — Steven A. Metcalf II, attorney for Ariel Mitchell
Mitchell says Combs relied on his Florida domicile while challenging jurisdiction in separate California litigation. She now argues that the same Florida domicile would undermine the diversity jurisdiction supporting this New York federal case.
The argument is Mitchell's. The court has not ruled that jurisdiction is lacking.
But Combs was in Brooklyn while being held in federal detention.
Mitchell’s attorney, Steven A. Metcalf II, argues that incarceration did not make Combs a New York domiciliary and that he remained domiciled in Florida, where he maintained a home before his arrest.
If Combs and Mitchell were both Florida citizens when the lawsuit was filed, Mitchell argues, the required diversity did not exist.
Her filing also points to separate litigation in California in which, according to Mitchell, Combs successfully relied on evidence establishing his Florida domicile while challenging that court’s jurisdiction over him.
“Plaintiff cannot have it both ways,” Metcalf wrote.
Cronan has not ruled on the argument, and Thursday’s filing is not another motion to dismiss. Mitchell is asking for permission to make the jurisdictional challenge.
It arrived as Combs faces a separate problem with his own legal team.
Attorneys Michael Tremonte, Erica Wolff and Katie Renzler of Sher Tremonte LLP have asked to withdraw, saying Combs is in “substantial arrears” on his legal bills and has not made himself available for substantive communication for months.
Combs disputes their account. He says he decided to replace the firm because it overcharged him and billed for work he had not authorized. The firm denies that allegation.
During Thursday’s conference, Wolff told Cronan that the firm still had not spoken with Combs despite another attempt to reach him. Cronan did not immediately grant the attorneys’ request to withdraw and directed them to continue attempting to reach Combs.
The jurisdiction issue also surfaced during the conference. Wolff offered a preliminary response that Combs had come to New York intending to remain there.
Mitchell, meanwhile, is asking the court to suspend her deadline to answer the lawsuit and her discovery obligations while the jurisdiction question is considered.
Her new challenge does not undo Combs’ Sept. 4 victory. Instead, it raises a more fundamental question about the surviving lawsuit: whether Combs had the legal standing to bring it in federal court in New York in the first place.










