Clerical Error May Save Lil Wayne From Assault & Battery Lawsuit

Last year Lil Wayne was sued by his former bodyguard who accused the rapper of punching him in the head and waving a semi-automatic rifle in his face [click here if you missed that].  

Now Weezy may be off the hook due to a clerical error...

From Radar Online 

Lil Wayne's former bodyguard Christian Carlos is fighting to keep his lawsuit against the rapper from being tossed out over a clerical mixup, RadarOnline.com can reveal.

Carlos sued the 41-year-old rapper in December 2023 over an "assault and battery" that allegedly took place at the musician's Los Angeles home on Dec. 1, 2021. The bodyguard accused Lil Wayne — whose legal name is Dwayne Michael Carter Jr. — of "punching [him] in the head while waving around a semiautomatic rifle," and "threatening him" with the gun.

The rapper's ex-employee claimed the incident caused him "physical injury" as well as "severe emotional distress" and PTSD, on top of "incurring medical bills," loss of immediate wages, and having his "earning capacity reduced." He asked the California court to grant him unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

However, he must now prove that he filed the complaint before the two-year statute of limitations had run out for his allegations.

In a motion filed on June 11, Christian claimed he filed the lawsuit electronically a little after noon on Dec. 1, 2023 — the last day he was eligible to do so. However, it wasn't entered into the system that day "due to a discrepancy," and the filing was therefore rejected.

The alleged victim's legal team said the bodyguard had to resubmit a corrected document after the cutoff date, because the court notified him about an inconsistency in how Lil Wayne's name was listed. Therefore, the case wasn't officially filed until Dec. 4.

Carlos' lawyer asked the court to either extend the statute of limitations — also known as "tolling," which is allowed in cases that meet certain conditions — or correct the filing date.

His counsel argued the request should be granted "on the grounds that the Court's rejection of the electronically filled complaint here triggers a mandatory tolling of the statute of limitations, alternately, that the court clerk had a ministerial duty to file the Complaint in this action as of the date presented."

If tolling request is rejected, Carlos' attorney argued his client's complaint "should be deemed filed on the date it was first presented, even with an insubstantial technical defect in the filing."

A hearing on the motion was scheduled for 8:30 AM August 1 at a courthouse in Van Nuys.