A former child actor identified pseudonymously as John YH Roe filed a civil lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs on June 9, 2026, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging that Combs sexually assaulted him at a Hollywood Hills networking event in May 2007, when the plaintiff was a minor [1]. The suit also names talent agencies Lang Talent and Amsel, Eisenstadt, Frazier & Hinojosa Talent Agency as defendants, along with agency founder Deidre Lang, alleging that each failed to adequately supervise or protect the minor plaintiff [1][2]. A spokesman for Combs denied the allegations [1].
The complaint adds to a civil litigation roster that now encompasses more than 100 cases against Combs [2]. Combs is currently serving a 50-month federal prison sentence following his federal criminal conviction [2]. The new lawsuit's claims, arising from a 2007 incident, suggest the plaintiff may be relying on California's expanded civil window for childhood sexual abuse claims, which the legislature extended to allow survivors to sue regardless of when the abuse occurred, though the specific statutory basis pleaded in the complaint was not reported in detail by available sources [1][2]. The inclusion of the talent agencies as defendants signals an effort to hold institutional actors liable under a theory of negligent supervision or duty of care toward a minor client placed in a professional setting.
The case is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, and no hearing schedule or response deadline has been reported by available sources [1]. The agencies have not issued public statements as of the date of filing [1][2]. Combs' legal team faces simultaneous exposure across the civil docket while he remains incarcerated, limiting his direct participation in pretrial proceedings.
Discovery, potential motions to dismiss by the agency defendants, and any challenge to the timeliness of the claims under California's childhood sexual abuse statutes represent the likely near-term procedural battlegrounds. The case could also produce early rulings on whether the talent agencies owed a cognizable duty of care to a minor client in an informal industry setting, an issue with broad implications for the entertainment sector's standard of care obligations toward minor talent.