NBA star Jimmy Butler and his ex-girlfriend Kaitlin Nowak are attempting to hash out a settlement after he called her out for allegedly refusing to seek employment amid their paternity battle, In Touch can exclusively report.

According to court documents obtained by In Touch, on Friday, January 10, Jimmy’s lawyer informed the court the NBA star was dropping his recent motion for temporary relief.

Jimmy, 35, explained that he was withdrawing the motion that he filed on December 2, 2024, without prejudice, in light of ongoing settlement discussions with Kaitlin.

The “without prejudice” part means Jimmy could refile his motion if the settlement talks fall apart or any issues arisen in the future.

According to court records obtained by In Touch, Kaitlin filed a paternity lawsuit against Jimmy on October 12, 2023. The public learned about the case when Daily Mail published an outlet about Jimmy’s recent motion filed in December 2024.

In his motion, obtained by In Touch, Jimmy explained he had reached a final judgment establishing paternity in February 2024.

The NBA star said he was established as the legal and biological father of three children: a daughter, R.M.B., born in 2019 and a son named B.M.B., born in 2022, and a second son named K.B., born in 2023. Jimmy said per the deal he agreed to temporarily pay for a nanny for Kaitlin.

He said that the agreement stated he would pay his ex $10,000 per month for a nanny starting in January 2024.

His lawyer said, “At the time of the Stipulation, timesharing had not been fully established and the youngest child was only five weeks old. Since the entry of the Stipulation and subsequent Agreed Partial Final Judgment Establishing Paternity, the circumstances have vastly changed concerning Mother’s need for a nanny.”

Jimmy said their youngest child was now over one year old.

He said his timesharing with the children has been established and he exercises 50 percent timesharing with the two older children.

His lawyer said, “Father has had timesharing with the older children for significant stretches of time, including during summer 2024.” His lawyer pointed out, “the oldest child will be attending school in the 2025 – 2026 academic year and the middle child will be enrolled in pre-school or childcare, curtailing if not eliminating Mother’s so-called need for a nanny.”

Jimmy said he pays his ex a “huge child support payment each month, which is more than sufficient to cover the expenses of a nanny, if the mother wants one.”

His lawyer said Jimmy pays his ex $55,000 a month in child support.

His lawyer then slammed Kaitlin.

He wrote, “Mother is unemployed and refuses to seek employment. With one child in preschool and Father exercising equal timesharing with the older children, there is no legitimate reason for Mother to insist both on a nanny and that father pay for that nanny.”

Jimmy said he tried to work out the issue at mediation but said his ex refused to waive her demand that he continues paying for the nanny on top of the “tremendous amount of child support” he pays.

His lawyer said, “Neither Mother nor any of the children have health issues that would make the expenses of a nanny reasonably medically necessary.”

“No nanny for Mother is reasonably necessary when Father is exercising his fifty percent timesharing. Therefore, even if the court determined that a nanny was a legitimate expense for which Father should pay, there is no basis to require Father to pay for a nanny to be with Mother when Father is exercising timesharing,” Jimmy’s motion read.

“Mother is fully capable of paying the cost for the nanny herself without any reduction in the lifestyle these young children enjoy,” Jimmy’s lawyer told the court.

“It must be pointed out that Father and Mother were never married. Mother is not entitled to live as if she is married to National Basketball Association (NBA) player.”

Jimmy said that if his ex is claiming she cannot afford a nanny despite the child support she receive, he is entitled to an accounting of her use of the funds and potentially a court-appointed official being appointed to oversee the expenditures.

At the time, Jimmy’s lawyer said, “The parties have been unable to reach a further agreement with regards to the nanny, which has necessitated the need for this motion.” A couple of weeks later, Jimmy informed the court they were close to a settlement. The paternity action is ongoing.