Connect with us


Diddy’s Ex-Nanny Who Claimed She Was Late Kim Porter’s Niece Drops Wrongful Termination Bombshell Case




Diddy's Ex-Nanny Who Claimed She Was Late Kim Porter's Niece Drops Wrongful Termination Bombshell Case

DiddyThe woman’s ex-nanny dismissed the lawsuit she filed against the embattled mogul – just months after demanding he be sanctioned for allegedly refusing to hand over documents.

This is evident from court documents obtained by, Raven Waldenwho worked for Diddy from 2018 to 2020, informed the court that she was dismissing her entire case with prejudice.

The move comes after Diddy was hit with multiple federal lawsuits alleging sexual abuse — and the FBI launched a sex trafficking investigation that included raids on the mogul’s homes.

As previously first reported, Raven claimed in her lawsuit that she was hired after Diddy’s ex Kim Porter died. She said she was asked to help care for Kim and Diddy’s twins. Jesse James And D’Lila.

Raven she said moved into Diddy’s LA mansion and became close to his family. However, she said things took a turn for the worse after she informed Diddy and his team that she was pregnant.

The ex-nanny said she was fired. Raven said she was told that Diddy feels that being around an unmarried pregnant woman was not a good example for his daughters. Her lawsuit sought unspecified damages.

Diddy’s rep called the lawsuit a “deserved shakedown.” The mogul admitted that he hired Raven, but denied that her position was meant to be long-term.

His representative said“Her babysitting services were always intended to be temporary, especially as the girls got older and spent most of the day at school.”

In response, Diddy also denied that Raven was Kim’s biological niece. His lawyers argued that Raven was fired because she had not done her job properly, not because of her pregnancy.

Diddy argued that Raven’s claims should be dismissed because she failed to “satisfactorily perform her job responsibilities and otherwise conduct herself in accordance with the standards and policies of the Combs Defendants.”

He claimed the decision to terminate Raven was not discriminatory.

Diddy and Raven had gone back and forth during the discovery phase. Raven claimed that Diddy and his team had difficulty passing on documents and information.

Her attorney said, “Defendants have been completely evasive in their discovery responses.” She demanded $5,000 in sanctions.

Diddy denied the claims and said he produced everything he needed to. His lawyer said: “Rather than filing the request and wasting the court’s and party’s resources, [Raven] should have consulted with the [Diddy] on a production schedule to understand when they would produce the documents they committed to. Sanctions are not warranted under these circumstances because the requested documents were submitted and the motion was not relevant to the case [Diddy’s] production, and [Raven’s] Counsel created a dispute that did not exist.”

Now the matter is on the agenda. Diddy, who has been laying low in Miami, has yet to speak about the firing.