Sean 'Diddy' Combs Hit With Sexual Assault Lawsuit by Male Former Child Actor as Rapper Serves Out 4-Year Jail Sentence

Sean "Diddy" Combs has been hit with yet another sexual assault lawsuit.

According to a new filing, a male named John Doe claimed he was working as a child actor in 2007 when he went to a Hollywood Hills, Calif., party, as a networking opportunity. After meeting the rapper at the bash, Combs allegedly asked the child star to chat in private about the future of his career, and things became inappropriate.

Doe said the star began touching him and then performed oral s-- while Combs also touched himself despite Doe making it clear he was uncomfortable. Doe claimed Diddy left the room when he was done before informing him he would keep the budding star in mind for future projects.

The music mogul's rep Juda Engelmayer shot down the story, telling TMZ, "Allegations from this so-called nameless child actor are false and ridiculous. He's just another hater in a long list of people trying to get in on the money gravy train encouraged by personal injury lawyers. Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted anyone — and that includes any child! These allegations will be disproved like all the rest."

Combs is currently serving out a 50-month jail sentence on prostitution charges but was cleared of s-- trafficking and racketeering allegations.

In addition to the trial, the father-of-seven was hit with numerous sexual assault allegations from both male and females.

Combs' attorneys have been trying to get an appeal on his conviction, as they claimed his sexual parties known as "freak offs" were immaterial under the Mann act, a law that makes it a crime to transport anyone across state lines or borders for prostitution or "any other immoral purpose."

"Freak-offs and hotel nights were highly choreographed sexual performances involving the use of costumes, role play, and staged lighting. Which were filmed so Combs and his girlfriends could watch this amateur p----graphy later. P----graphy production and viewing of this sort is protected by the First Amendment and thus cannot constitutionally be prosecuted," the filing stated. "In other words, the term 'prostitution' in the Act should be limited to those situations where a paying customer engages in s-- with the person being paid."

Prosecutors called his claims "meritless," claiming he's "entirely differently situated from adult film distributors."

"He hired and transported commercial s-- workers to have s-- with his girlfriends for his own sexual gratification, sometimes directly participating in the s-- acts," they stated, adding that overturning the conviction would mean "any defendant who transported others to engage in prostitution could escape liability simply by watching or filming the s--."