This post was originally published on this site.
50 Cent‘s publishing company suffered a procedural setback after a New York appeals court upheld a lower court ruling denying its request for a default judgment against Shaniqua Tompkins.
Tompkins is the mother of the rapper’s eldest son, Marquise Jackson.
The unanimous decision by the Appellate Division, First Department does not resolve the underlying breach of contract dispute.
It allows Tompkins to formally respond to the lawsuit after the court determined G-Unit Books failed to establish that she had been properly served with the legal papers.
G-Unit Books sued Tompkins over a series of social media posts and promotional content, alleging they violated a 2007 agreement in which she allegedly sold the rights to her life story for $80,000. The company seeks at least $1 million in damages and an injunction barring her from publishing additional material it contends is covered by the agreement.
After Tompkins did not answer the complaint for roughly four months, G-Unit Books sought a default judgment. However, both the trial court and the appellate court rejected that request.
In its ruling, the appeals court found the company failed to demonstrate Tompkins actually resided at the addresses where process servers attempted to deliver the lawsuit. Court records show one building employee reportedly told a process server that Tompkins no longer lived at a Queens address. Also, a resident at a Brooklyn location said he did not know her.
Tompkins stated she had not lived at the Brooklyn address since 2015 and maintained she never received the lawsuit.
The appellate panel also rejected the argument that media coverage of the lawsuit constituted notice.
There was documented coverage stating Tompkins had been contacted for comment, however the court found there was no evidence she had actual notice at the time.
Because the court found her explanation for the delayed response reasonable, it affirmed the lower court’s decision allowing her to file an answer and defend herself.
Tompkins has also challenged the validity of the 2007 agreement itself.
She alleges she was pressured into signing the contract through threats and intimidation by individuals associated with 50 Cent’s business team.
She further claims she never received the full $80,000 payment outlined in the agreement, alleging she was ultimately paid only about $35,000 after deductions.
Those allegations remain disputed and have not been proven in court.
The appellate ruling does not determine whether Tompkins breached the agreement or whether the contract is enforceable.
Those matters will return to the trial court, where both sides will have an opportunity to litigate the merits of each’s case.
