Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05056/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05056-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:2271 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RONALD SATISH EMRIT PLAINTIFF

 v. CIVIL NO. 24-5056 

SEAN “P. DIDDY” COMBS; BAD

BOY ENTERTAINMENT; and

ATLANTIC RECORDS DEFENDANTS 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff, Ronald Satish Emrit (“Emrit”), a resident of Sarasota, Florida, 

commenced this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2271. (ECF No. 2). Emrit proceeds pro se and in 

forma pauperis(“IFP”). Pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable 

Timothy L. Brook, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the 

purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. This case is before the Court for preservice 

screening of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

I. Background

In this action, Emrit names as Defendants Sean “P. Diddy” Combs (“Combs”), Bad Boy 

Entertainment, and Atlantic Records. (ECF No. 1, p. 1). He seeks $45 million in damages because 

“defendants have become a public nuisance after the filing of a lawsuit by Cassandra 

Ventura...who was signed to Bad Boy Entertainment on or around 2005.” Id. at 2. He also 

contends the Defendants tortiously interfered with his music career, as well as those of Ventura 

and others including Usher Raymond and 50 Cent. Id. Finally, he asserts that they have 

“committed the commercial tort of products liability in the form of a manufacturing defect or 

design defect” to which strict liability applied. Id. Emrit invokes the Court’s subject matter 

Case 5:24-cv-05056-TLB Document 7 Filed 04/01/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, although he does not provide any allegations about 

the citizenship of the named Defendants and asserts federal question jurisdiction “because this 

proceeding involves a discussion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990, Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, Fourth Amendment, and 

Privileges and Immunities Clause.” Id. at 3-4. 

Emrit alleges that he filed a prior lawsuit against Atlantic Records because it had a duty to 

know that a person named Richard Shaw and his partner Anthony Wayne Sterago were 

fraudulently claiming to be connected to Atlantic’s founders, Ahmet Ertegun and Ertegun’s 

nephew. Id. Emrit met Ertegun at the 2006 Grammy Awards and later wrote him a letter about 

Shaw and Sterago. Id. at 4-5. Ertegun’s assistant called Emrit to tell him that Atlantic passed on 

his demo CD and encouraged him to sign a record deal with another company. Id. Emrit allegedly 

signed with Ten Karat Gold Productions and Tuff-Stuff Recording and came to know a person 

named Kerry Moore-Purnell in the Maryland Department of Business and Economic 

Development, who also worked for Richard Shaw. Id. According to Emrit, Shaw and Ertegun both 

mysteriously died thereafter. Id. He asserts that although communications with Ertegun has “little 

or nothing to do with Sean ‘P. Diddy’ Combs and Bad Boy Entertainment he still has standing, 

causation, and redressability to file a lawsuit against both Sean ‘P. Diddy’ Combs and Bad Boy 

Entertainment because both Sean ‘P. Diddy’ Combs and Bad Boy Entertainment are in ‘privity of 

contract’ with Atlantic Records and Julie Greenwald and [Emrit] has had previous litigation

against both Atlantic Records...and Warner Music Group...” Id. at 6.

Emrit’s “public nuisance” claim against Combs is based on an allegedly now lost 

endorsement deal Combs had with Macy’s to distribute Ciroc vodka. Id. He asserts that Combs’ 

billboards for Ciroc vodka “on the street an [sic] highways are an ‘eye sore’ and public nuisance 

Case 5:24-cv-05056-TLB Document 7 Filed 04/01/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

given his newfound status as a sexual predator who has committed the crimes of pimping and 

pandering, human trafficking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and white slavery of a Latina 

woman in North Carolina according to the hearsay testimony of his bodyguard Gene Deal who 

should be placed in the witness protection program.” Id. The tortious interference claim is based 

on the named Defendants “continuing to enable a sexual predator,” Combs, “to conduct business 

in places of public accommodation such as billboards.” Id. The products’ liability claim is 

apparently based on allowing Combs to represent Ciroc vodka at department stores like Macy’s

but is otherwise incomprehensible. Id. at 7. Emrit concedes that he is not a shareholder of either 

Bad Boy Entertainment or Atlantic Records, who can bring a shareholder derivative action, but 

may still assert his claims “given that he is a consumer of music and music videos and he often 

operates a motor a motor vehicle on highways in which he sees the annoying billboards...for Ciroc 

vodka which encourages drunk driving...” Id. Emrit also asserts he has standing to bring suit “as 

a concerned American who wants to prevent an Al Capone or Pablo Escobar-like figure from 

having ant[sic] influence over the music business or recording artists...” Id. at 8. In addition to 

money damages, Emrit also seeks an order putting Bad Boy Entertainment into bankruptcy or 

receivership proceedings. Id.

Emrit’s case in this Court was opened on March 8, 2024. A review of publicly available 

records from other federal courts reveals that, to date, Emrit has filed the identical complaint in at 

least three other federal districts. See Emrit v. Combs, Civ. A. 24-129 (Ed. Pa.), Emrit v. Combs, 

Civ. A. No. 24-89 (D. Md.), and Emrit v. Combs, Civ. A. No. 24-7 (N.D. Fl.). The Pennsylvania 

case was filed on January 8, 2024, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The 

Maryland case was filed on January 9, 2024, along with an application to proceed in forma 

Case 5:24-cv-05056-TLB Document 7 Filed 04/01/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

pauperis. The Florida case was filed on January 10, 2024, along with an application an application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. 

II. Applicable Standard

The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are 

frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iiii).

A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or it

is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather than to 

vindicate a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987); In re 

Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se 

plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however 

inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson

v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).

However, even a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. 

Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

III. Discussion

As noted above, Plaintiff filed a prior action against Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment, and 

Atlantic Records alleging the same facts and cause of action in another district. See Emrit v. 

Combs, Civ. A. 24-129 (Ed. Pa.). The prior action was dismissed as frivolous and for failure to 

Case 5:24-cv-05056-TLB Document 7 Filed 04/01/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

state a claim under the IFP statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii)(IFP action may be dismissed 

on such grounds at any time). 

While a dismissal under the IFP statute does not bar future litigation over the merits of a 

paid complaint making the same allegations as the dismissed complaint, a dismissal under the IFP 

statute has res judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future IFP petitions. Waller v. 

Groose, 38 F.3d 1007, 1008 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S. 

Ct. 1728, 1734, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1992)). Accordingly, the dismissal under the IFP statute of 

Emrit’s claims [against Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment and Atlantic records] in the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania has res judicata effect and establishes that [his] second, identical claim is 

frivolous for purposes of the IFP statute. Waller, 38 F.3d at 1008. 

IV. Conclusion

For these reasons, it is recommended that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) based on res judicata. 

Status of Referral: Entry of this Report and Recommendation terminates the 

referral.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court.

RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April 2024. 

/s/_________________________________ 

 CHRISTY COMSTOCK

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05056-TLB Document 7 Filed 04/01/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>