Rapper and business mogul, Sean “Diddy” Combs has filed two emergency motions to overturn a recent $100 million court ruling.

This comes after Combs was accused of sexual assault by Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith, who is presently serving up to 75 years in prison for charges such as first-degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping.

The civil suit against Diddy was filed in June, and Cardello-Smith received the defaulted civil suit judgment at a hearing in a Michigan court on Monday. A default judgment, on the other hand, is usually the result of one party’s failure to respond to a summons or appear in court.

Combs’ lawyers are seeking to reverse the court’s decision, claiming that the music mogul was never informed of Cardello-Smith’s allegation. They also deny allegations of sexual assault, calling them baseless.

“This is a frivolous lawsuit against a prominent businessman, based on obvious fabrications,” the motion states, labeling Cardello-Smith as a “convicted rapist and serial litigant with an overactive imagination and a thirst for fame.”

The attorneys also allege that Combs was unaware of the matter until three days ago, when news of the $100 million default judgment surfaced.

Cardello-Smith’s allegations trace back to June 1997, when he claims Diddy assaulted him following a party in Detroit. According to his testimony, he was in a private hotel room with Combs and two ladies when he was handed a drink, which led him to pass out. He later awoke in pain and bleeding.

However, Combs’ legal team criticized these charges as “objectively unbelievable” and highlighted major inconsistencies in Cardello-Smith’s statement.

According to the lawsuit, Cardello-Smith said the incident occurred in Detroit after meeting Combs at a restaurant. Later, in a pretrial statement, he claimed that the assault took place in Adrian, Michigan.

Cardello-Smith also accused Combs of paying local police officers to keep the incident quiet, citing a 1997 “agreement of silence and confidentiality” signed by Combs and others, including Michigan officials. Combs’ attorneys have denied the accusation, describing it as a “fantastical conspiracy.”

In another lawsuit, Combs seeks to overturn a temporary restraining order issued to Cardello-Smith as part of the default decision. His legal team claims that the order was wrongfully granted and violated Combs’ constitutional rights.

The motion claims that the decision on injunctive relief, which allowed the restraining order, was flawed due to several legal mistakes. Among these issues is an alleged violation of due process, as Combs was not served with the required paperwork prior to the order being issued.

Combs’ argument also focuses on a “ex parte” legal action, which involves only one person. His attorneys argue that an ex parte pre-judgment attachment of his real property, which the restraining order effectively represents, is unconstitutional as it denies due process rights.