Ariel Mitchell requested a choose to dismiss Diddy’s $100 million lawsuit, arguing her statements have been primarily based on public data.

Ariel Mitchell is asking a federal choose to dismiss Diddy/”>Diddy’s $100 million defamation lawsuit, arguing that her feedback in regards to the Hip-Hop mogul have been primarily based on public allegations and never made with “actual malice.”

Mitchell’s lawyer, Steven Metcalf, stated the up to date grievance fails to satisfy the authorized threshold for defamation in opposition to a public determine.

“There is no allegation that Ms. Mitchell made any knowingly false statements,” Metcalf wrote, including that the claims have been primarily based on “active litigation or police reports.”

Diddy filed the swimsuit earlier this yr, accusing Mitchell, lawyer Courtney Burgess and Nexstar Media Group—mother or father firm of NewsNation—of spreading false and damaging statements.

The lawsuit was initially set at $50 million Diddy-doubles-down-with-100m-defamation-suit-after-wild-claims-hit-the-airwaves/”>however has since doubled to $100 million in alleged damages, citing “severe reputational harm.”

Mitchell is accused of claiming she had incriminating footage of Diddy throughout a media interview. She now says that the assertion was taken out of context and was by no means introduced as an unique revelation. Instead, she claims it mirrored allegations already made by others in civil fits or prison complaints.

One of Diddy’s most critical claims is that Mitchell bribed a witness. Her authorized staff argues that’s a prison accusation, not a civil matter, and says the grievance mischaracterizes unproven allegations as official findings by the Florida Bar.

Mitchell additionally disputes the try to attach her popularity to Nexstar and NewsNation, saying the claims about her weren’t public till lately and have by no means been adjudicated in courtroom.

In the January 19, 2025, follow-up interview on NewsNation, Mitchell and her shopper mentioned a 2018 police report. She insists they didn’t fabricate any claims and have been merely referencing present authorized paperwork.

Mitchell’s central protection hinges on the concept repeating allegations from lawsuits or police data—particularly in her function as a lawyer—doesn’t quantity to defamation.

“The statements were not made with actual malice,” Metcalf said, emphasizing that Diddy’s grievance lacks proof that she knowingly unfold lies.

Mitchell is looking for to be faraway from the lawsuit solely, sustaining that her authorized commentary was protected speech.

The courtroom has not but dominated on Mitchell’s request to dismiss the case, which was amended by Diddy’s authorized staff on August 19.

Related