Paid sex does not automatically mean agreeing to every condition involved. That distinction is at the heart of Clayton Howard’s lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, and the music mogul’s attorneys are now using an unusual comparison as they seek to have the case dismissed.
In an Oct. 7 filing, Combs and two of his companies reportedly argued that Howard’s years of paid encounters undermine his claims that he was coerced into sexual activity. “Howard is similar to a restaurant, offering choices both on and off the menu,” his lawyers wrote.
The latest legal argument from Diddy’s team suggests that a former escort had the freedom to choose which services he offered and which requests he declined.
Paid sex does not automatically mean agreeing to every condition surrounding it. That distinction is central to Clayton Howard’s lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, whose attorneys are now using an unusual comparison as they seek to have the case dismissed. In an Oct. 7 filing, Combs and two of his companies reportedly argued that Howard’s years of paid encounters undermine his claims of sexual coercion.
The defense maintains that Howard, a former male escort, could choose which services to provide and refuse requests he was uncomfortable with. Combs’ attorneys have also accused him of pursuing legal action after losing income when the encounters ended.
Howard’s amended complaint, however, draws a distinction between agreeing to paid sexual encounters and consenting to everything that allegedly occurred during them. He acknowledges accepting payment and understanding the sexual nature of the meetings, but claims his participation was prolonged through alleged misrepresentations, drugs, and physical restraint.
One of his allegations concerns a 2016 trip to Miami, where Howard claims his clothing, identification, and phone were taken away. He further alleges that he witnessed Combs assault Cassie Ventura before being directed into another room, where he claims he was kept for approximately 12 hours.
“Plaintiff’s agreement to attend the Miami encounter did not extend to being deprived of his clothing, identification, and telephone; to witnessing an assault; or to being confined for approximately twelve hours in a room he could not leave,” Howard wrote in the complaint.
The latest filing comes after a July ruling in which a judge allowed several of Clayton Howard’s civil trafficking claims against Combs to proceed. U.S. District Judge Anne Hwang dismissed other parts of the lawsuit but gave Howard the opportunity to revise them, resulting in the current version of his complaint.
Combs’ attorneys argue that the amended complaint still fails to establish a connection between the alleged use of drugs or physical restraint and sexual acts Howard would not otherwise have agreed to. They also maintain that Howard’s own account of a 2015 encounter indicates that the sexual activity stopped after he became ill.
Meanwhile, Cassie is separately asking Judge Hwang to dismiss the claims against her. Her legal team argues that Howard has not adequately alleged that she used force, fraud, or coercion against him. Howard’s latest complaint seeks financial damages and medical expenses, as well as an order prohibiting harassment or retaliation.
The civil lawsuit is separate from Combs’ concluded federal criminal trial. A jury acquitted him of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy but convicted him on two counts of transportation for prostitution. Howard’s allegations were not the sex-trafficking charges decided in that criminal case.
Judge Hwang is scheduled to hear arguments over the latest dismissal request on Oct. 21. The hearing will bring the competing arguments over consent before the court, with Combs’ team maintaining that Howard could choose from the available “menu,” while Howard argues that agreeing to paid sexual encounters did not mean giving up control over everything that happened afterward.
