The legal team behind the Diddy lawsuit that named Druski and Odell Beckham Jr. is calling it quits.
Legal documents obtained by Complex reveal that attorneys Shawn R. Perez and Ariel Mitchell, who represented Ashley Parham, Jane Doe, and John Doe in their case against Diddy — which also names Druski and Odell Beckham Jr. — cited “irreconcilable differences” as their reason for wanting to withdraw from the case.
In the filing, the attorneys claimed that their relationship with the plaintiffs had become “unreasonably difficult.” They said they’ve informed them of their decision and given him enough time to find new representation.
The attorneys also requested for the judge to briefly pause the case so that the switch in attorneys doesn’t hurt their chances in court.
Last October, Parham filed the lawsuit alleging that she’d been drugged, kidnapped, and assaulted by multiple people after Diddy heard her saying she thought he was involved in Tupac Shakur’s murder in 1996. The lawsuit was amended in March, naming Druski, OBJ, and others as those who were allegedly involved.
Druski issued a statement on social media shortly afterwards, writing, “This allegation is a fabricated lie. I wasn’t a public figure in 2018 — I was broke living with my mom without any connections to the entertainment industry at the time of this allegation, so the inclusion of my name is truly outlandish.”
“My heart breaks for actual victims of abuse, but I’m fully confident that the evidence will expose this falsehood and the individuals who are maliciously trying to game the legal system to pedal false narratives,” he continued.
OBJ took to social media to respond to the lawsuit too. “Boy I’ll tell u what. This world makes absolutely no sense,” he wrote. “I am covered by God. He will prevail. I kno who am I , I kno who u are, keep ur head. That name will be cleared. Shxts stupid.”
In May, Druski’s legal team claimed in a legal following that he couldn’t have been involved in her assault because she alleged she was assaulted by two other men.
In August, a federal judge ruled that there appeared to be “no reasonable factual basis” for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit to continue alleging that Druski participated in the assault.