Sean 'Diddy' Combs' ex-nanny drops wrongful termination lawsuit against rapper amid sex trafficking probe

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: Although a small court matter has gone Sean "Diddy" Combs' way, he's still in a lot of hot water.

Only a few months after calling Diddy to face consequences for allegedly withholding documents, the singer's former nanny dropped a wrongful termination lawsuit against the troubled entrepreneur.

Raven Walden, who worked for Diddy from 2018 to 2020, notified the court that she was dismissing her entire case with prejudice, per court documents obtained by Radar Online.

The action was taken following the FBI's sex trafficking investigation, which involved raids on Diddy's residences, and the rapper's exposure to several federal lawsuits alleging sexual assault.

Diddy's former nanny overturned wrongful termination lawsuit against the rapper

Raven Walden—the former nanny of the 'I'll Be Missing You' singer—told the court that though she had previously filed a wrongful termination claim after working for Diddy from 2018 to 2020, she had chosen to abandon the entire case with prejudice.

Raven claimed in the now-dismissed case that she was paid to care for Diddy and his ex-girlfriend Kim Porter's twins, Jessie James and D'Lila, who are currently 17 years old.

The late model tragically died at the age of 47 from lobar pneumonia in November 2018.

According to Raven, she moved into Diddy's mansion in Los Angeles and became close to his family. She claimed, however, that things took a bad turn after she revealed her pregnancy to Diddy and his crew.

The former nanny alleged she was let go. Raven claimed to have heard from Diddy that he believed his daughters should not be around an unmarried pregnant mother. Her claim sought damages that were not mentioned.

Diddy's representative called the lawsuit a "meritless shakedown" and claimed they had no plans to hire Raven permanently at the time the rapper was sued.

The representative insisted that it had nothing to do with her unplanned pregnancy and was more likely the result of her not performing the job correctly.

"Her babysitting services were always intended to be temporary especially since the girls were getting older and spending most of the day at school," Diddy's representative claimed at the time.

Former nanny Raven Walden alleged to be niece of Diddy's ex Kim Porter

Former nanny Raven Walden asserted that she was wrongly fired due to her pregnancy and claimed to be Kim Porter's niece—a claim Diddy vehemently refuted.

In her lawsuit and on social media, Raven (@roxy_bacardi on Instagram) previously claimed to be the niece of Diddy's long-term ex, Porter. On social media, there were several images of her with Porter and also condolences following her death.

Raven has pictures of herself at birthday parties with the Combs family and others that date after the period she claimed her employment stopped. Moreover, Porter’s profile includes photos of her and Raven’s eldest son, per The Cheat Sheet.

Asserting that the nanny had not "satisfactorily perform her job responsibilities, and otherwise conduct herself in accordance with the standards and policies of Combs Defendants," Diddy's legal team asked that the case be immediately dismissed.

The 'Coming Home' rapper asserted that Raven's termination was not a biased action. Diddy and Raven had been communicating back and forth throughout the discovery stage.

Diddy and his team, per Raven, were taking their time turning over records and data. However, Raven's attorney responded that the "defendants have been completely evasive in their discovery responses" and called for a $5,000 fine.

Diddy's lawyer responded, saying: "Instead of filing the Motion and wasting Court and party resources, [Raven] should have consulted with [Diddy] on a production schedule in order to understand when they would be producing the documents they committed to."

"Sanctions are not warranted under these circumstances because the documents sought have been produced, the Motion was irrelevant to [Diddy’s] production, and [Raven’s] counsel manufactured a dispute that did not exist."