The sexual assault civil suit brought against Trey Songz has been dismissed. The $20 million sexual assault lawsuit had been filed, dismissed and refiled. Now, because the plaintiff failed to file a timely rebuttal, the case was dismissed due to the statute of limitations.
As Blavity previously reported, the suit against Songz, whose legal name is Tremaine Neverson, was filed in February. In court documents obtained by TMZ, a woman identified as “Jane Doe” accused Songz of anally raping her. The alleged incident happened at a house party in West Hills, California, on March 24, 2016.
In the documents, Doe claimed she “had a consensual sexual relationship” with Songz before the alleged incident. She then stated that after her refusal on the night of March 24, he turned into a “savage rapist.”
The plaintiff said that Songz removed her pants when they got to the room, held her down and forcibly inserted his penis into her anus while she screamed and begged him to stop.
Songz adamantly denied the allegations from the beginning. He maintained his innocence plea during the duration of court proceedings.
Rolling Stone reports that in August, the 38-year-old singer’s legal team entered a claim that the statute of limitations on Doe’s allegations had expired.
The singer’s claim filed by his lawyer, Randall M. Awad, stated, “Even if plaintiff’s allegations are true — and defendant vehemently maintains they are not — plaintiff’s claims are facially time-barred under the applicable two-year statute of limitations.”
Doe missed an Oct. 19, 2022, deadline to file the rebuttal, leaving grounds for the case to be dismissed. In 2016, the statute of limitations in California to file a civil claim for sexual assault was two years, if the said victim was over 18.
Jane Doe’s lawyer failed to attend the Nov. 1 court hearing, leaving the judge no choice but to grant Songz’s request that the case be rejected. It was also ruled that the plaintiff could not file additional appeals.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Shirley K. Watkins stated, “The court finds Neverson’s argument persuasive, and the plaintiff was required to present argument and facts to show that the pleading defect can be cured.”
She continued, “Because the plaintiff did not file an opposition, the plaintiff has not met her burden. The court finds the action to be time-barred.”
Neither parties nor their legal teams have commented on the case’s dismissal.
