Plaintiff Claims P. Diddy's Defamation Damaged Plaintiff's Drug Smuggling Business

Plaintiff says he was "always willing to set up business deals with the rich for drugs."

From Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain's opinion Tuesday in Gonzalez v. Bad Boy Entertainment (S.D.N.Y.):

Plaintiff Alfredo P. Gonzalez, who appears pro se and is currently incarcerated in the Centennial Correctional Facility in Canon City, Colorado, brings this action asserting claims of defamation. He seems to allege that he is a citizen of Colorado, and he sues: (1) Bad Boy Entertainment ("Bad Boy"), which, he alleges, "is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the [S]tate of New York"; and (2) Sean "P. Diddy" Combs, Bad Boy's Chief Executive Officer, whom he alleges is a citizen of the State of New York. Plaintiff seeks $666,000 in damages….

Plaintiff alleges the following: Due to what appear to be his connections with the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, on or about May 5, 2021, Plaintiff received a telephone call from an unidentified business partner of Combs. The business partner told Plaintiff that Combs "was wanting to set up some business deals with [the] Sinaloa Cartel." {Plaintiff seems to allege that he is a member of that cartel.}

Plaintiff responded by saying that he was "always willing to set up business deals with the rich for drugs." Combs's "business partner stated that [Combs] was looking to make a deal to get some young [g]irls/[b]oys for a party in New York." While Plaintiff wanted to speak to Combs himself, he told the business partner that such an arraignment "could not happen" because the cartel did "not sex traffic under age kids." The business partner told Plaintiff "that he ha[d] nothing to worry about [because] … Combs ha[d] everything on lock street slang for no one can fuck with us [sic]." Plaintiff told the business partner that there was "no money" in sex trafficking; the business partner then told Plaintiff that he was making "a big mistake for not tak[ing] the offer from … Combs," and the call ended without an agreement.

The same unidentified business partner of Combs later communicated again with Plaintiff, "asking once again if [Plaintiff] could help get some under[age] [b]oy[s] and [g]irls over the U.S. [b]order and that … [P]laintiff could come to the party and watch the shows they put on." Plaintiff refused; he told the business partner that he "want[ed] no part in their sex offender shit[,] … not to contact him[,] [and] that Sinaloa wants no part in their sex offender[ ] shit…." Plaintiff also insulted Bad Boy. The business partner then told Plaintiff "that he can make [Plaintiff's] life hell because of how much power he has in the streets." Plaintiff told him to "do what you do."

"Due to … Combs['s] [and Bad Boy's] defamation of … [P]laintiff[,] [Plaintiff] has lost all his business contacts in the [S]tate of New York…." Plaintiff was informed by his own business partner "that he cannot do business with [Plaintiff until Plaintiff] helps Bad Boy out. This has cost[ ] … [P]laintiff a lot of money." …

Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he has standing to assert his claims…. "To establish injury in fact [for standing purposes], a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."

Plaintiff appears to allege that the defendants have injured him with regard to his illegal drug smuggling and sales business by defaming him. Because Plaintiff's business is not alleged to be a legally protected interest, however, Plaintiff has not shown that the defendants have caused him an injury in fact for the purpose of establishing standing. See PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. Nat'l Ass'n of Bds. of Pharmacy (S.D.N.Y. 2024) ("The argument is perhaps best summed up in a leading civil procedure treatise: 'Standing would not be recognized for a smuggler who asserted that his drug traffic was disrupted. Although the smuggler had been injured in fact, … the asserted interest is not one the courts will protect.'" …