Fed Judge Rules No “Factual Basis” For Druski To Be Included In Diddy Sex Assault Lawsuit

Source: Christopher Polk / Getty

Earlier this year, an alleged victim of Diddy’s really swung for the fences when she attempted to rope in the likes of Odell Beckham Jr. and comedian Druski into her lawsuit against the disgraced music icon, and though the jokes that followed the Druski allegations were pretty damn hilarious, it was no laughing matter for the popular content creator.

Now, months after Druski provided proof to demonstrate that he was broke and at home at the time of the alleged assault of said victim, Ashley Parham, a federal judge is siding with the social media superstar stating that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence for Druski to have been included in the lawsuit against “The Diddler.”

According to documents obtained by Complex, a federal judge in the Northern District of California declared that there’s “no reasonable factual basis” for Parham and her legal team to continue to allege that Druski had participated in the alleged gang-rape that she accused Diddy and others of participating in. The court even went so far as to order Parham’s counsel as to why they shouldn’t face sanctions for their “continued pursuit of claims against Druski.” On the flipside, the court denied Druski’s motion for sanctions for having his name inexplicably included in the lawsuit against Diddy.

Complex reports:

Druski, identified as “Doe 1” in the initial complaint, was added as a defendant on March 13, 2025, in an amended complaint filed by Parham and two additional plaintiffs, Jane Doe and John Doe. The amended complaint explicitly alleged Druski participated in Parham’s gang rape. The Doe plaintiffs also allege they were abducted, trafficked, and witnessed Parham’s assault, with Jane Doe reportedly sexually assaulted by another defendant.

Following his inclusion, Druski moved for sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 requires attorneys to have a factual basis for allegations and to conduct a reasonable investigation before filing a lawsuit. Druski’s motion, filed on May 9, 2025, contended that the claims against him were frivolous.

Luckily for Druski, he was able to provide documents showcasing just how broke and living at home he was at the time of the alleged assault, which in turn helped get him off the hook of these disturbing allegations. Just goes to show that sometimes being broke can save your life.

Now that the heat has been placed on the accuser and her legal team, it will be interesting to see how they try to spin this development when they have to return to court with an explanation next month.

As a result, plaintiffs’ counsel has been ordered to show cause by September 9, 2025, why their representations about a factual basis for naming Druski do not warrant sanctions, potentially in the form of dismissal or attorneys’ fees. Instead of risking all that, the plaintiffs may instead just choose to voluntarily dismiss him from the lawsuit.

Looks like they’ve gotten themselves into quite a pickle.

What do y’all think about this latest development in Druski being pulled into the Diddy drama? Let us know in the comments section below.