Smokey Robinson alleges in a new court filing that one of the housekeepers suing him for sexual assault recently stole thousands of dollars’ worth of property from his family’s storage unit — claims the woman in question denies.
The Monday (Dec. 8) filing in Los Angeles court represents a bizarre new twist in the civil sexual abuse litigation being waged against the 85-year-old Motown legend by six anonymous ex-household employees. Robinson says the claims are extortionate falsehoods and has countersued his accusers for defamation and elder abuse.
Related
Monday’s motion focuses on the plaintiff known as Jane Doe 4, who alleges Robinson raped her repeatedly while she worked as the singer’s housekeeper between 2007 and 2024. According to Robinson’s attorney, Christopher Frost, this former employee kept her key to the family’s storage unit and has now used it for a “blatantly criminal act.”
“On December 8, 2025, while visiting the storage unit, [Smokey’s wife] Frances Robinson was informed by a facility employee that approximately two weeks earlier, on November 22, 2025, an individual — joined by two others — had accessed the storage unit and left with the Robinsons’ personal property,” wrote Frost. “Ms. Robinson was then shown security footage depicting three individuals at or inside the storage unit for approximately 40 minutes, including one whom she immediately recognized as Jane Doe 4, seen removing boxes and other property of the Robinsons into a vehicle.”
The motion claims Jane Doe 4 took thousands of dollars’ worth of personal property from the storage unit. Robinson’s team is now seeking a restraining order to stop the woman from taking more items, including potential evidence in the sexual abuse litigation.
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday (Dec. 9), Frost said his team is “taking swift action to ensure that Jane Doe 4 and those assisting her cannot go near the Robinsons, a couple in their 70s and 80s, because there seem to be no limits on what they are willing to do.”
“As absurd as this turn of events might seem, it is yet another example of how Jane Doe 4 and her group of accusers are motivated by greed — even the pettiest kind,” added Frost. “We are already suing them for financial elder abuse, conversion and invasion of privacy. Beyond absurdity, it is also alarming that she has retained and is exploiting access to the Robinsons’ property.”
However, the plaintiffs’ attorney, John W. Harris, said in a statement of his own on Tuesday that Jane Doe 4 “vehemently denies ever having visited that unit at any time since leaving her employment with the Robinsons.”
“We have not been provided the video the Robinsons claim to rely upon, but we look forward to obtaining it so the truth can be exposed,” said Harris. “It is deeply troubling that the Robinsons would resort to this kind of inflammatory accusation, which plays into longstanding racist tropes and is clearly designed to smear and discredit a survivor who bravely came forward. We are confident that once the evidence is produced, these claims will be revealed for what they are — another baseless attempt to intimidate and retaliate against a victim.”
This is just the latest skirmish to break out in the case, which began with $50 million claims from four female housekeepers in May and grew last month to include a fifth female housekeeper and a male car mechanic who worked for Robinson. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is also conducting a parallel criminal investigation, though no charges have been filed to date.
Robinson’s lawyers have repeatedly accused the plaintiffs of slow-walking the discovery process to avoid scrutiny of what they say are demonstrably false allegations. In another Monday motion, Frost argued that Jane Doe 4 walked out of a recent deposition because she was “desperate to avoid” tough questions and evidence that contradicted her claims.
Harris quickly responded on Monday that his team ended Jane Doe 4’s deposition early because Frost “repeatedly raised his voice in a hostile manner” and “launched unsupported personal attacks” on the witness. He said they’re willing to participate in further depositions, but only if a different lawyer conducts the questioning.
