Tony Buzbee is actively pursuing legal measures to have the Jay-Z lawsuit against him dismissed. He claims that the two parties reached an agreement, which Jay subsequently failed to honor. However, representatives for Jay-Z assert that Buzbee’s claims are unfounded and misleading.

Buzbee, a prominent attorney from Texas recognized for his representation of over 120 alleged Diddy victims, submitted new legal documents on Monday, aiming to dismiss the defamation lawsuit that Jay-Z initiated against him in Alabama. This lawsuit has been a significant point of contention, drawing considerable attention from the media and public alike.

Previously, Tony represented a Jane Doe who accused both Jay-Z and Diddy of committing rape against her in New York back in 2000. Ultimately, she withdrew her rape lawsuit, and in response, Jay-Z filed a lawsuit against her and Buzbee in Alabama, the state where she resides, challenging the validity of her claims and the initial lawsuit.

In the newly obtained documentation by TMZ, Buzbee contends that Jay-Z leveraged his significant fame and wealth to intimidate his accuser into retracting her allegations and dropping her rape lawsuit, suggesting a misuse of power that raises ethical questions about the influence of celebrity status in legal matters.

Buzbee argues that Jay-Z’s legal action is being pursued in the incorrect jurisdiction and asserts that the lawsuit lacks a substantial legal foundation. Furthermore, he claims that a form of agreement existed between the parties, which should negate the basis for the lawsuit and highlight the complexities of legal negotiations in high-profile cases.

In the legal documents, Buzbee states, “Ultimately, the relentless pressure that Mr. Carter and his associates exerted on Doe became overwhelming for her. On February 4, 2025, an agreement to resolve the litigation was reached between Doe and Mr. Carter, through their attorneys, which included the voluntary dismissal of the SDNY Action.” This statement emphasizes the alleged coercive tactics used in the case.

However, representatives for Jay-Z assert that Tony is living in a fantasy regarding his claims of reaching a “settlement.” Jay-Z’s attorney, Alex Spiro, told TMZ, “Complete lie. He brought a false case, lost badly, and was forced to dismiss it quickly. End of story.” This rebuttal highlights the contentious nature of the legal battle between the two parties.

Tony Buzbee’s attorney, Marc E. Kasowitz, responded to Spiro’s claims, stating, “Spiro’s assertion that there was no settlement is a complete fabrication. There was an exchange of emails between me and Spiro that clearly outlined the settlement terms. As part of that settlement, Spiro agreed to withdraw the position 11 motions for sanctions that he had filed against Mr. Buzbee’s law firm.” This response adds another layer to the ongoing legal discourse.

Kasowitz elaborated, “We agreed to withdraw the lawsuit that Jane Doe had filed for rape against Jay-Z and Mr. Combs, despite Jane Doe’s continued assertion that the allegations in that lawsuit were true. Furthermore, Jay-Z and Spiro agreed not to send any more individuals to harass and intimidate Jane Doe and her family. However, just one week later, Jay-Z and his lawyer breached that settlement by sending alleged investigators to intimidate her and her family further.” This statement underscores the tension and potential ethical violations surrounding the case.

Spiro has acknowledged in court documents that Kasowitz did reach out to him about dismissing Jane Doe’s lawsuit against Jay-Z. He stated that he informed him that Jay-Z “would never settle the lawsuit or pay any money to resolve it, given it was a heinous false accusation.” This highlights the staunch position taken by Jay-Z’s legal team in this case.

Spiro mentioned that while Kasowitz did request that they halt investigations into Buzbee’s law firm, he contended that Kasowitz’s claim of a specific settlement to cease harassment of Jane Doe is untrue. This difference in accounts illustrates the complexity and contentious nature of the legal proceedings involved.