Jay-Z Appeals After Rape Accuser Recants
Jay-Z is asking a California appeals court to reconsider a recent decision that left his lawsuit against attorney Tony Buzbee and his law firm dismissed, arguing that a newly filed sworn declaration from the woman who accused him of rape provides significant new evidence supporting his claims.
The rapper, whose legal name is Shawn Carter, filed a petition for rehearing after the California Court of Appeal for the Second District ruled September 9 that his lawsuit against Buzbee could not proceed. The appellate court had affirmed a lower court’s decision to strike Carter’s claims under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which provides a mechanism for dismissing lawsuits arising from protected speech or petitioning activity.
The new development came after the woman identified in the original lawsuit as Jane Doe formally recanted her allegations against Carter. In a sworn declaration filed in federal court in New York, she stated that Carter never raped her, that she had never met or spoken with him, and that there was no truth to her allegations against him. She also stated that she was not receiving compensation for making the declaration.
The original lawsuit was filed in 2024 and alleged that Carter and Sean Combs sexually assaulted the woman following a party connected to the MTV Video Music Awards in 2000, when she was 13. Carter denied the allegations. The woman later withdrew the lawsuit, after which Carter filed his own litigation against her, Buzbee and the law firm involved in bringing the allegations.
Carter’s California case against Buzbee alleged civil extortion, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. His lawyers argued that Buzbee had used a demand letter and threatened litigation in an effort to obtain a financial settlement from Carter. The California courts rejected those claims at the anti-SLAPP stage.
The September appellate decision concluded that the demand letters sent by Buzbee were protected prelitigation communications because they concerned the underlying dispute and were made in anticipation of litigation. The court also determined that Carter had not established a sufficient probability of prevailing on his claims to overcome the anti-SLAPP motion.
The appeals court also considered Carter’s allegations that Buzbee had defamed him by publicly discussing the accusations. The court concluded that Carter had not demonstrated the required evidence of actual malice under the circumstances presented in the case. Actual malice in a defamation context generally involves knowledge that a statement was false or reckless disregard for whether it was false.
Another significant issue was evidence Carter wanted to obtain through discovery. His lawyers sought to question Jane Doe and Buzbee about their knowledge and motivations, arguing that such discovery could produce evidence supporting his claims. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s refusal to permit that discovery, citing procedural and statutory limitations associated with anti-SLAPP proceedings.
The new sworn declaration changes the factual landscape Carter is asking the court to consider. The woman now says that her accusations against Carter were false and that she had never met him. She also described how she initially became involved after responding to an advertisement seeking information from people who believed they had been harmed by Combs.
According to her declaration, the advertisement led her to a law firm representing alleged victims of Combs. She said she eventually came to question whether her recollection supported the allegations against Carter and asserted that the lawsuit had been filed without her reviewing the original complaint. Her account now provides a substantially different description of the events than the allegations contained in the original lawsuit.
Buzbee’s side has disputed the significance of the recantation. His attorneys have pointed to the woman’s earlier statements and argued that the new declaration conflicts with evidence previously presented to the California courts. They have also challenged the suggestion that the new declaration automatically establishes wrongdoing by Buzbee or his law firm.
That distinction is legally important. The woman’s recantation does not itself establish that Buzbee knowingly filed false allegations, committed extortion or defamed Carter. Those are separate legal questions requiring evidence concerning what Buzbee and others knew and when they knew it.
Carter’s new petition argues that the recantation is sufficiently significant to warrant reconsideration of the appellate ruling and potentially permit limited discovery. His lawyers contend that the new evidence could help establish facts that were unavailable or not adequately developed when the California courts previously considered the case.
The California Court of Appeal’s September 9 ruling was unpublished, meaning it was not certified for publication in California’s official reports. The appellate docket confirms that the court affirmed the lower court’s order and awarded Buzbee costs on appeal.
Carter is also pursuing a separate malicious-prosecution case in federal court in New York. Following the woman’s recantation, Carter voluntarily dismissed her as a defendant in that proceeding, while continuing to pursue claims against Buzbee and others involved in the original litigation.
The legal significance of the latest development therefore centers on whether a court will allow Carter to reopen or reconsider claims that have already been rejected. The California appellate court is not being asked simply to determine whether the woman’s original allegations were true. It must also consider whether the new evidence affects the legal conclusions reached under California’s anti-SLAPP framework.
For now, there has been no judicial finding that Buzbee knowingly pursued false allegations against Carter, and the recantation does not automatically establish liability. Likewise, the California appellate court has already ruled in Buzbee’s favor on the existing record. Carter’s petition seeks another review based on evidence that emerged after that decision.
The case therefore remains an ongoing legal dispute involving defamation, alleged extortion, anti-SLAPP protections and the consequences of a major change in an accuser’s account. The next significant step will be the California appellate court’s decision on whether the new declaration warrants rehearing and whether Carter should receive another opportunity to pursue his claims.
Key Legal Outcome
- Jay-Z has asked the California Court of Appeal for a rehearing after the woman who accused him formally recanted her allegations.
- The woman stated under oath that Carter never raped her and that she had never met or spoken with him.
- The California appellate court previously affirmed dismissal of Carter’s claims against Tony Buzbee and his law firm under the state’s anti-SLAPP law.
- The appellate court held that Buzbee’s prelitigation demand letters were protected activity and that Carter had not shown a sufficient probability of prevailing on his claims.
- The court has not yet ruled on Carter’s new request for rehearing based on the recantation.
Why It Matters
- The case raises questions about how courts handle new evidence emerging after an appellate ruling.
- The recantation creates a substantially different factual account from the allegations underlying Carter’s original lawsuit.
- The dispute tests the interaction between defamation claims and California’s anti-SLAPP protections.
- It also raises questions about what evidence is necessary to establish actual malice in a defamation case involving a public figure.
- The case illustrates that a recanted allegation does not automatically establish liability; courts must separately determine what defendants knew, whether their conduct was legally protected, and whether the applicable legal standards are satisfied.
