CJ Wallace, the son of the late rapper Notorious B.I.G., is pressing ahead with a defamation lawsuit against music publicist Jonathan Hay. However, the case has stalled over procedural challenges. According to reports, Wallace recently told a judge that repeated efforts to formally serve Hay with court papers have been unsuccessful. Without proper service, the case cannot move forward. Hay has not publicly commented on the matter.
The legal dispute stems from allegations Hay has made against Wallace in separate filings. Hay has accused Wallace of sexual assault and of facilitating misconduct involving Sean “Diddy” Combs during studio sessions in 2020. Wallace has denied those claims in court documents. He has rejected allegations that he participated in sexual acts with Combs, attended so-called “freak-offs,” or arranged situations in which Hay was harmed. Wallace’s attorneys describe the accusations as false and defamatory.
In a recent filing, Wallace stated that seven attempts have been made to serve Hay since November 2025. During one visit, a woman identified as Hay’s daughter reportedly told a process server that Hay had moved out months earlier and had not remained in contact. Wallace’s attorney, Jeremiah Reynolds, also requested that Hay’s legal team accept service electronically in early January. However, that request was declined. Wallace has indicated that he may hire a private investigator to locate Hay so the case can proceed.
From Remix Dispute to Courtroom Clash
Wallace and the estate of his father have suggested that the dispute is tied to business disagreements over Hay’s “Ready To Dance” remixes in 2020. The estate declined to release those remixes. They argue that the allegations surfaced after that decision. Hay, in filings of his own, has alleged that he was assaulted during a 2020 studio session connected to those remixes and that Wallace was present. Attorneys for Wallace deny those assertions, and no criminal charges have been announced in connection with Hay’s claims.
For now, the court’s immediate focus is procedural rather than substantive. Until service is completed, the judge cannot fully address the merits of the defamation case. The competing accounts remain sharply at odds, and the litigation appears likely to continue.
