Druski recently went viral for impersonating a clueless white boy from the hood, but now he is forcefully rejecting a lawsuit denying that he is one, literally and legally.
The comedian is demanding sanctions against attorneys Ariel Mitchell and Sean Perez, accusing them of filing a fabricated civil suit that wrongly names him in a 2018 sexual assault claim involving Diddy.
In court filings, his legal team says the case is not only baseless but also riddled with contradictions and factual impossibilities.
The lawsuit accuses Druski and others, including Diddy and Odell Beckham Jr., of sexually assaulting Ashley Parham during a bizarre encounter allegedly motivated by a Tupac-related comment.
The complaint claims Diddy directed Druski to attack Parham.
“Druski doused Plaintiff with more oil/lubricant and then jumped on top of Plaintiff’s naked and oiled body, treating it like a slip and slide and knocking the wind out of Plaintiff due to his enormous size,” the filing reads. “Defendant Druski then caught himself from sliding over Plaintiff’s oiled body and off the bed; he then began raping Plaintiff vaginally.”
But Druski’s legal team says the timeline doesn’t add up.
In 2018, he was 23 years old, living and working as a waiter in Georgia, with no ties to the other defendants or the California location where the incident allegedly occurred.
“Instead of conducting the legally-required diligence, Ms. Mitchell and her co-counsel, Sean Perez, recklessly put forth a story in which [Druski]—at the time a broke waiter in Georgia—somehow ended up in Orinda, California with a slew of celebrities he had not yet met in an attack supposedly orchestrated as revenge for Ms. Parham’s offhand comment that Sean Combs killed Tupac,” Druski’s attorney David Grossman wrote.
Grossman pointed to earlier police records and sworn statements from Parham that contradict her current claims.
“Less than a month after the alleged attack, Ms. Parham herself told the police that she was attacked by Mr. Pearce and his ‘twin,’ another thin white man she had previously met. A year later, she declared under penalty of perjury that story was true—she had been attacked by Mr. Pearce and his friend,” Grossman said.
That earlier version of events did not mention Druski at all. In fact, the identification of him as a suspect only came after the lawsuit gained media attention, according to Grossman.
They argue that Mitchell and Perez conducted a photo lineup with Parham after the complaint had already been filed, raising red flags about the integrity of the identification process.
Druski’s attorneys are asking the court to impose monetary penalties, cover attorney’s fees, and potentially dismiss the case entirely.
The court has not yet ruled on the request for sanctions.
Related
