On November 3, steadicam operator Adeshola Adigun filed a lawsuit claiming that Video God LLC, its “sole member” and owner Gabriel Hart, and Ice Cube violated California labor law when they failed to pay him. According to Law360, Adigun said that, “To date, despite repeated requests, defendants have failed to fully compensate plaintiff for the work he performed on the production,” and that Video God “was a mere shell and sham without sufficient capital or assets to meet its debts, obligations and liabilities.”
The plaintiffs were hired July 2, 2024 to work on the videoclip of Ice Cube’s song “Ego.” The next day the production ended and Adigun was discharged without pay.
Adigun and five other plaintiffs allege violations of:
- California’s entertainment-industry payroll rules
- Waiting-time penalties
- itemized wage-statement requirements
- Breach of contract
California Law Requires on Entertainment Shoots the following:
Immediate Pay at Wrap
Certain film, TV, and video production workers must be paid immediately upon discharge. No “next payroll.” No “we’ll send it next week.” No “check is in the mail”.
Waiting-Time Penalties
If that payment doesn’t arrive, workers can seek daily penalties (up to 30 days) calculated at their regular wage rate.
Wage Statements
Employers must provide accurate, itemized wage statements — hours worked, pay rate, gross/net, and more. Failure can trigger statutory damages plus recovery of attorneys’ fees.
Breach of Contract
Even when workers are hired informally, California typically treats promised payment as a contractual obligation.
Ice Cube’s Defense
Ice Cube argues that he was never the employer. If he didn’t hire them, didn’t control their work, and wasn’t responsible for their pay, then he shouldn’t be liable for any unpaid wages. But the plaintiffs contend they were hired by individuals connected to the production, worked under direction on set, and were let go without their promised compensation. California law stipulates that employment doesn’t necessarily hinge on formal paperwork. Rather, supervision and control and the right to direct the work often take precedence, but those lines can get crossed on fast-moving shoots.
READ MORE CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW LEGAL NEWS
In March 2025, Adigun’s counsel filed motions to compel Ice Cube to provide further responses to interrogatories and requests for documents and admissions. In June, Judge Kerry Bensinger ordered Ice Cube to provide detailed factual support for his affirmative defenses rather than generic legal phrases. Ice Cube had to say how he acted lawfully and if he denied employing the workers, he needed to clarify who was responsible for the relevant decisions.
According to Judge Bensinger’s tentative ruling, the court has compelled Ice Cube to turn over documents about Adigun’s role and the allegations in the lawsuit. Several of Ice Cube’s responses to requests for admission were also deemed inadequate, with the court finding them inconsistent or improperly evasive.
To date, a trial has not been set. The case is Adeshola Adigun v. O’Shea Jackson Sr. et al., case number 25STCV31960, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
Source link
