Diddy’s ex-nanny dismissed the lawsuit she filed against the embattled mogul.
via: OK!
Diddy’s ex-nanny recently dismissed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the embattled rapper, mere months after insisting he be sanctioned for allegedly refusing to turn over documents, court records obtained by RadarOnline.com revealed.
The “I’ll Be Missing You” singer’s former nanny Raven Walden informed the court she decided to drop the entire case with prejudice despite previously coming forward with claims of wrongful termination after working for Combs from 2018-2020.
In the now-dismissed lawsuit, Walden alleged she was hired to take care of Diddy and his ex-wife Kim Porter’s twins, Jessie James and D’Lila, now 17, after the late model devastatingly died at age 47 from lobar pneumonia in November 2018.
The nanny claimed she moved into Diddy’s Los Angeles mansion — which was raided last month by federal Homeland Security agents amid an ongoing s– trafficking investigation — in order to provide help for the family.
Things allegedly went downhill, however, when the award-winning artist discovered she was pregnant and decided to fire her.
Walden claimed the sole reason she was terminated as the family nanny had to do with her being pregnant, as she alleged Diddy told her it wasn’t a good example for his twins to be taken care of by someone expecting out of wedlock.
The nanny demanded unspecified damages in the lawsuit.
At the time he was sued, a rep for Diddy described the case as a “meritless shakedown” and denied intentions of hiring Walden as a long-term employee.
“Her babysitting services were always intended to be temporary, especially since the girls were getting older and spending most of the day at school,” the rep said, insisting it had nothing to do with her coincidental pregnancy and more so involved her not doing the job properly.
In the midst of claiming she was wrongfully terminated, Walden also alleged she was Porter’s niece — which Diddy vehemently denied.
The “Coming Home” rapper’s legal team demanded the case be dismissed, accusing the nanny of failing to “satisfactorily perform her job responsibilities, and otherwise conduct herself in accordance with the standards and policies of Combs Defendants.”
Still, Walden’s lawyer countered, “defendants have been completely evasive in their discovery responses” and demanded $5,000 in sanctions.
In response, Diddy’s attorney declared: “Instead of filing the Motion and wasting Court and party resources, [Raven] should have consulted with [Diddy] on a production schedule in order to understand when they would be producing the documents they committed to. Sanctions are not warranted under these circumstances because the documents sought have been produced, the Motion was irrelevant to [Diddy’s] production, and [Raven’s] counsel manufactured a dispute that did not exist.”
