50 Cent's legal team maintains they followed proper procedures in pursuing a default judgment against someone who failed to respond to the lawsuit in a timely manner. The attorney argued that multiple addresses were attempted through legitimate databases, and the delay itself constitutes prejudice.
Insiders say the courtroom was unusually tense for an appellate hearing, with judges openly skeptical of 50's strategy from the opening moments. Sources close to Tompkins suggest her legal team has been building a case that will paint the 2007 agreement as coercive and potentially unenforceable—a narrative that could damage the rapper's reputation if it goes to trial.
50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) filed suit through his publishing company G-Unit Books last year after Shaniqua Tompkins posted Instagram videos about Diddy's criminal trial. The 2007 agreement allegedly paid Tompkins $80,000 for perpetual life rights. At Thursday's June 12 hearing, Josh Reisberg of Blank Rome faced five appellate judges who noted 'no indication' Tompkins had been properly served.
50 Cent tried to bury this case in a quick default judgment—and instead handed his ex-girlfriend the platform she needs to expose exactly how that 2007 deal went down. If the appeals court denies him, this goes to trial, where Tompkins' duress allegations will get the full courtroom treatment.
Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson's legal team walked into a New York appellate courtroom Thursday expecting a routine win. Instead, they got eviscerated. At a hearing on June 12, 2026, attorney Josh Reisberg faced an unusually hostile panel of five appeals court judges who systematically dismantled every argument for why the rapper deserved an automatic victory in his lawsuit against ex-girlfriend Shaniqua Tompkins.
The questioning began before Reisberg could even start his presentation—one judge immediately noting there was "no indication" that Tompkins had ever seen the lawsuit at all. "So counsel, you're asking for a default judgment for four months' delay, where it doesn't appear the defendant was served properly. Is that right?" the judge asked Reisberg of Blank Rome, according to court records.
The case stems from last year, when 50 Cent's publishing company G-Unit Books sued Tompkins over Instagram videos she posted during Sean "Diddy" Combs' criminal trial—videos that touched on the rapper's infamous 2000 shooting and his long-running feud with Combs. The rapper's attorneys claim they paid Tompkins $80,000 in 2007 under an agreement giving them perpetual rights to her life story—a deal explicitly designed, court filings show, "to preserve" Jackson from potential reputational damage.
"His concerns were ultimately proven correct," his lawyers wrote at the time. But when Tompkins finally responded in January, she wasn't playing defense. Her attorneys argued the case should be dismissed entirely because she'd never been properly served—a claim that a lower court judge apparently found credible enough to deny 50's request for default judgment.
Now Jackson is appealing that denial, and Thursday's hearing made clear exactly how difficult that uphill battle will be. Reisberg argued that process servers had tried multiple addresses for Tompkins pulled from digital databases—but the judges weren't having it. "I'm trying to understand: How did you make a proper showing other than saying 'Oh, these are the addresses'?" one judge pressed.
"I could say that about anybody. You can't believe everything that's on the internet about all our addresses." The panel then turned to whether Jackson even suffered real prejudice from Tompkins' delayed response—the legal threshold required for a default judgment. Reisberg's argument?
That prejudice exists "in every case in which a defendant fails to appear." The judges shut that down immediately. "No. No.
That's not the case," one justice told him flatly, later adding: "There's no prejudice here. Why not go to trial?" The hearing ended with the court signaling it viewed 50's position unfavorably. After suggesting Reisberg had essentially conceded Tompkins wasn't properly served, the judges emphasized that public policy strongly favors allowing defendants their day in court—a point Reisberg didn't contest.
Tompkins' legal team has already indicated they'll pursue a full defense if given the chance, with her January affidavit laying out explosive allegations about how that 2007 agreement came to be. "The agreement was presented as a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum," she wrote, "and I was given no opportunity to seek independent counsel or negotiate any terms." She added: "Fearing for my life and for my children's lives, I signed the agreement under extreme duress." If the appeals court denies 50's request—and Thursday's hearing suggests they will—Jackson faces exactly what he's been trying to avoid: a full trial where those coercion allegations get aired publicly. His attorney did not return requests for comment.
