complaint

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice filed a complaint Wednesday against federal judges in Minnesota over their remarks to the media related to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge.

The complaint escalates the department’s battle with the federal judiciary, which has halted administration priorities, dismissed high-profile prosecutions and accused government lawyers in some cases of failing to comply with court orders.

The department is demanding that the judges recuse themselves from all criminal or civil cases involving the Department of Homeland Security, Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told reporters, because of what he described as “obvious bias they have shown” in recent remarks to the New York Times.

At issue is a September article in which seven federal judges in Minnesota — nominated by Democrats and Republican presidents — spoke on the record about their experience dealing with a flood of cases during last winter’s immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests.

The judge at the center of the story, Patrick Schiltz, accused the government in January of failing to comply with nearly 100 court orders. He said in a ruling that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a part of Homeland Security, “is not a law unto itself.”

Schiltz, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush and served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, told the newspaper that what happened in Minnesota’s federal court last winter “created a grave threat to the rule of law.”

In a statement Wednesday, Schiltz said he was “acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to The New York Times.”

“Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges” may speak or write “on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence,’” Schiltz said. “That is exactly what I did.”

The complaint was filed with the chief judge of the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees federal judges in Minnesota.

The Republican administration has railed against what it describes as “activist judges” who officials say are intent on thwarting Trump’s agenda. Yet some of the most critical and unfavorable court rulings have come from judges nominated by Trump and other Republican presidents.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Seven Minnesota judges face ethics complaint after speaking publicly about the US president’s immigration crackdown.

The United States Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against seven federal judges in Minnesota who spoke publicly about the pressure their courts came under during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The judges spoke to The New York Times this month about dealing with a flood of cases during Operation Metro Surge, an immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests in the Minneapolis-St Paul area from December to February.

The Justice Department says it crossed an ethical line by talking publicly about the cases.

Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the judges of showing “obvious bias” against the Trump administration and called on them to step aside from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“When we have a situation like we have now, where you have a judge, a couple of judges, just not only violating the canons in our view but also showing bias in what they’re saying, we have no choice but to act,” Blanche told reporters.

The judges say they did nothing wrong. A spokesperson for Minnesota’s federal court system said legal experts had found that the judges were “well within the ethical rules” when they spoke to the newspaper.

The complaint is the latest in a series of clashes between the Trump administration and the judiciary, which has blocked some of the president’s policies and, in several cases, accused government lawyers of failing to follow court orders.

One of the judges named in the complaint, Patrick Schiltz, alleged that the government did not comply with nearly 100 court orders related to immigration enforcement in January alone.

In one ruling, he wrote that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “is not a law unto itself”.

Schiltz was nominated by Republican President George W Bush and previously clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

He later told The New York Times that what happened in Minnesota’s federal courts during the crackdown “created a grave threat to the rule of law”.

Schiltz also pointed to guidance issued by a federal judicial ethics panel in February, saying that judges can speak publicly about issues such as the rule of law and judicial independence.

“That is exactly what I did,” he said.

The Radford family are back in action once again in another series of their popular Channel 5 show.

Channel 5 viewers have been left less than impressed.

A brand new series of 22 Kids and Counting began earlier this month as Noel and Sue Radford let cameras back into their home to document their busy lives. During a recent episode of the show, Channel 5 viewers saw one of their eldest daughters, Millie, have relationship issues with her husband, Harvey.

One month on from their year anniversary, people saw Noel walk into their home to find Harvey’s belongings in a bag and a photograph of them torn up on the floor. A clip from the episode was shared on Channel 5’s Instagram, which showed Millie kicking Harvey out.

As Millie explained, she had told Harvey they were ‘through’, her husband told the cameras he had gone back to his mum’s house as she told him to leave their home.

Elsewhere in the snippet, it showed mum Sue trying to help the pair reconcile as she called in an expert in family dynamics.

The clip on Instagram was captioned: “Millie kicks Harvey out after reaching breaking point. But when Sue brings in an expert and some home truths hit hard, will Harley finally change his ways?” However, it wasn’t long before people commented on the snippet of the episode, with many issuing the same complaint.

One person said: “This whole show is more and more staged.” As another added: “Never watched something so scripted and set up. Absolutely ridiculous. What are the chances Noel was with the camera crew and the photo was placed in the middle of the floor in the most obvious ripped up pile?”

Someone else wrote: “So staged now. I liked watching it a few years ago.” While a fourth added: “Love this programme, but it’s getting more like a soap opera these days. Can tell things are set up for the cameras… saying they are moving house. Which never happened. Millie’s door was left open, and a ripped photo was on the floor. So fake.”

Although one person defended the programme, adding: “It may be more scripted and edited, but the storylines aren’t fake if that’s what you’re suggesting. Not sure why a programme affects you so much.”

As another shared: “I love this. Well done to the Radfords for actually supporting even though he’s not their kid, what a beautiful support system Millie and he have, and what a beautiful thing to do for your grandkids! Just amazing parenting and support, thank you!!”

During the episode, it showed the pair make amends as Millie and Harvey have recently welcomed their fourth baby into the world. She shared the news on social media this week, telling viewers they had a little boy called Cooper-Jax

22 Kids and Counting is available to watch on Sundays on Channel 5 at 8pm

The Blame was back for another instalment on Monday, with viewers quickly issuing a complaint

ITV’s thrilling crime drama The Blame returned to screens on Monday.

The six-part series stars Michelle Keegan and Douglas Booth as DI Emma Crane and DI Tom Radley, who attempt to expose corruption and deep-rooted misogyny within the police force after the death of a teenage girl. But unexpected twists and secrets soon leave Emma questioning who she can really trust.

The official synopsis teases: “The drama dives into secrets, suspicion and systemic corruption – all under the surface of this seemingly quiet town. The series begins when the body of teenage figure skater Sophie Madsen is discovered, sending shockwaves through the town of Wakestead.

“As DI Crane and DI Radley dig deeper, what starts as a tragic death, spirals into a tangled web of lies, institutional cover-ups, and moral compromise. As the clock ticks and trust fractures, Crane must navigate both a murder investigation and the treacherous politics inside her own team,” reports Wales Online.

During the latest instalment on Monday (September 28), Emma and her colleague DC Lewis Brimah (Nathan Mensah) visited Tom, after he was put under investigation. As the police officers discussed the case, many viewers were left distracted by the ex-cop who was hidden in the bushes outside.

One person felt that the detail was “really odd”, while several others shared their frustration. That’s not all, as the drama soon continued when Tom’s house was later raided by a swarm of officers.

Viewers quickly questioned why so many detectives had been instructed to attend the scene. One person asked on X: “Omg what are they doing at Tom’s house.”

Another added: “200 police to search Tom’s house,” while a third said: “So they need 20 coppers to arrest one man???” Someone else commented: “All raiding Tom’s house! OMG!”

Despite the confusion, The Blame has garnered largely positive reviews from critics and viewers since its debut last week. One IMDb user wrote: “We found this an amazing series. Keeps you guessing all the way through. This is no slow burner.”

Another added: “I binge watched this series in one day and loved it. Highly recommend this series. The acting was superb especially by Michelle Keegan, Douglas Booth, Nathan Mensah and Ian Hart. The script was really well thought out and it was a massive shock to read the team group message chats – taken from actual UK police officers, that have since been dismissed from the force.”

Someone else commented: “Loved this show. The acting was really good. The twists kept twisting and the turns kept turning right till the end. I usually have these things figured out but I was genuinely surprised by this show.”

The series has been adapted by Megan Gallagher with co-writers Ashley Sanders and Namsi Khan from the 2023 novel of the same name by Charlotte Langley.

The Blame is available to stream on ITVX

Melissa Nathan, the crisis management public relations pro hired by actor-director Justin Baldoni amid his lengthy legal feud with actor Blake Lively, is in the hot seat after Baldoni’s former publicist claimed that Nathan played a key role in operating a network of anonymous “smear” websites.

The publicist, Stephanie Jones, filed an initial complaint in New York Supreme Court in December 2024, accusing Baldoni’s crisis PR team of waging a coordinated effort to undermine her and deflect blame for what she called a retaliatory smear campaign targeting Lively.

But new documents filed last week brought front and center a “key question from the outset of this case”: Who was behind the creation of anonymous websites that popped up in May 2024 and accused Jones of “holding clients hostage” and leaking their secrets?

Nathan did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment Friday. But in a deposition, she said she was absolutely not the mastermind behind the now-defunct stephaniejonesleaks.com.

In the recent filing, Jones claims she repeatedly sought communications that could support her suspicions about the website’s origin, and last week received documents from Katherine Case, a former employee of Jones’ PR firm, Jonesworks, who subsequently worked for Nathan’s crisis management firm, the Agency Group.

Those documents, the filing alleges, show Nathan repeatedly testified falsely about the websites, and confirm that “Melissa Nathan was directly involved in a scheme to utilize untraceable websites to destroy the reputation of her competitors and those adverse to her clients. Stephanie Jones and Jonesworks were among her victims.”

In alleged text messages between Nathan and Case included in court documents, Nathan appears to have offered Case “three or four grand” to make the website copy tarnishing Jones’ reputation “a lot more meaty” — “good enough for us to be able to point a journalist towards.”

Nathan also appears to direct Case to discuss “holding clients hostage” and detail how people are “scared of” Jones, the documents allege.

Nathan is alleged to have instructed Case to write copy that would “follow along the lines of a purported ‘whistleblower’ narrative.” In Case’s notes from a subsequent phone call, she allegedly wrote, “Copy for the website along the lines of — I can’t sit and watch this woman continue to do this, this is what she does … it’s now a time where I can speak my truth about what I saw there.”

The filing claims that a record from Zelle, a money-transferring service, shows a subsequent payment to Case in the amount of $4,000 from “Melissa E. Nathan.”

The websites weren’t a one-off, according to the filing. They were allegedly one of Nathan’s specialties, and a hot commodity among embattled celebrities.

Three months after the Jones website went live, Nathan allegedly texted “Pitch Perfect” star Rebel Wilson, who was involved in a dispute with producer Amanda Ghost over Wilson’s directorial debut, the 2024 musical “The Deb.”

“Nathan quoted Wilson $110,000 for an untraceable site with a satellite, ghost server, ghost hosting, full build, maintaining, and full algorithmic push across all platforms … for 3 months,” the filing alleges. “The next day Nathan texted Case, ‘Rebel wants a one of those sites.’ ”

New Orleans Pelicans star Zion Williamson had a “friendly and casual ‘friends with benefits’ sexual relationship” with the woman who is accusing him of raping and abusing her multiple times between 2018 and 2023, according to a court filing by the former Duke standout’s legal team.

A document submitted to Los Angeles County Superior Court on Monday states that Williamson denies “each and every allegation” made against him by a Jane Doe in a second amended complaint filed in June.

Williamson’s filing describes the interaction between the former No. 1 overall draft pick and his accuser as “infrequent and sporadic.”

“All interaction among and between the Plaintiff and Defendant was pleasant and entirely consensual, with the Plaintiff initiating and communicating her desire to be intimate with the Defendant,” the document states, “and the Plaintiff herself decided to end the relationship because she became upset when she realized that the Defendant was focusing his time and energy on professional basketball and on being a father, and did not have sufficient time or interest to maintain a relationship with the Plaintiff.”

The second amended complaint lists the causes of action as assault, battery, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, domestic violence and stalking. The response from Williamson’s team states that the statute of limitations has expired on each cause of action.

The initial complaint, filed in May 2025, also included false imprisonment and conversion as causes of action, which are not included in the latest complaint.

The lawsuit provides details of two instances in 2020 during which Williamson allegedly raped his accuser in a Beverly Hills apartment he was renting at the time.

“These two incidents were not isolated,” the lawsuit states. “Defendant continued to abuse, rape, assault, and batter Plaintiff in California and other states, including Louisiana and Texas, until the relationship ended in 2023.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Williamson committed many other acts of violence against his accuser, including strangling her multiple times to the point that she lost consciousness, suffocating or smothering her, striking and kicking her “with great force,” threatening to kill her and her family members, and pointing a loaded firearm to her head.

Williamson “was either drunk or on cocaine” while allegedly committing many of those acts, the lawsuit states.

A jury trial has been scheduled for April 2028.

SACRAMENTO — The California Primary Care Assn. and five clinics filed a civil lawsuit in federal court Friday accusing SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and its president, Dave Regan, of racketeering and using ballot initiatives to “shake down” community health centers.

The association alleges that Regan and his union orchestrated a “multi-year campaign of coercion, threats, and economic pressure” to “extort” what the lawsuit describes as “valuable property rights” and “labor-organizing terms” from CPCA and the health centers the association represents in California, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Times.

The suit says Regan pushed Proposition 44, which if approved by voters in November will restrict spending at nonprofit community health clinics, as political leverage against the industry. Regan then offered to call off the measure if CPCA agreed to support the union’s efforts to unionize 25,000 industry workers, the lawsuit states.

In the complaint, CPCA estimates that 25,000 new union members would generate $2.37 million in monthly revenue from dues paid to UHW.

“This is about Dave Regan and UHW in particular adopting a strategy to create harmful legislation and harmful ballot initiatives to force people to the table to negotiate favorable agreements that will benefit them financially and then when those agreements don’t go through, they allow these initiatives to go through to create punishment for the organizations that can’t come to terms, and then they keep coming back, over and over and over again,” said Brandon Thornock, chief executive of plaintiff Shasta Community Health, echoing claims in the lawsuit.

“It’s a complete waste of resources and it’s amoral.”

A spokesperson for UHW did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. In an interview in July, Regan denied asking the clinics to support his unionization efforts in exchange for dropping Proposition 44.

“We wanted to construct a relationship with the clinic association that prioritized appropriate funding of the community clinics in California, including restoring the healthcare cuts that were introduced by the ‘One Big [Beautiful] Bill,’” Regan said previously. “It was a strategic relationship where we’re working in a mutually cooperative way to properly fund the healthcare system to respect workers, and they were not interested in that.”

Regan is a powerful figure in California politics who has a history of using the ballot box to try to force the healthcare industry to unionize. The union leader has come under scrutiny this year over claims about his extreme political tactics, intimidating behavior toward and threats against women, and an allegation of assault more than 15 years ago, all of which he denies.

Regan is also the architect of California’s billionaire tax, a proposal on the November ballot to apply a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires that has splintered labor and divided Democrats.

The CPCA lawsuit, in the federal court in the Eastern District of California, alleges that Regan’s political tactics are not designed to win initiatives, “but to subjugate and terrify.”

The union, the lawsuit states, has filed dozens of punitive ballot measures in California “targeting hospitals and dialysis providers with the implied threat or directly stated purpose of coercing health care providers into acquiescing to their union organizing or bargaining demands.” UHW has spent over $216 million, the suit says, on measures to “harm patients, destroy services, and drive providers out of business.” The vast majority of the UHW-backed measures have been withdrawn, usually after the industry agrees to concessions, the suit states.

“No other singular entity or individual has engaged in such widespread corruption of California’s initiative process,” the suit states.

Proposition 44 requires that community clinics spend 90% of revenue on patient services, which Regan has said ensures that money is aligned with the mission of the health centers.

CPCA and health centers say restricting the funding would dramatically reduce money for other essential services and leave some clinics at risk of closing their doors.

The CPCA lawsuit alleges that Regan’s demands on Proposition 44 were sent in an email in January from a legislative staff member on behalf of the union. The offer, presented as a joint submission from UHW and two union affiliates, included a requirement that community health centers “hold elections for at least 5,000 employees in each of five years the agreement would be in effect, resulting in elections for 25,000 employees over the five-year period.”

The complaint says the email also disclosed that UHW said it would drop the initiative if CPCA agreed to the terms.

“The e-mail unambiguously shows that UHW and the Union Affiliates — bullied and instructed by Regan — agreed and intended to participate in an endeavor to abuse the ballot initiative process to extract valuable labor concessions from CPCA and CHCs, in violation of federal and state law,” the complaint states.

Negotiations to withdraw the measure fell apart on June 24, the day before the deadline to rescind initiatives from the statewide ballot.

The lawsuit alleges that the union offered a new deal that same day.

“UHW would withdraw the Clinic Penalty Initiative if, in exchange, CPCA reversed its opposition to UHW’s billionaires’ wealth tax initiative and took the funds it raised to oppose the Clinic Penalty Initiative and instead used that money to assist UHW in passing its wealth tax,” the lawsuit alleges. “The next morning, Regan, through an intermediary, offered the same ‘deal.’ CPCA refused to entertain such discussions.”

The lawsuit states that California’s community health centers served 6.7 million people in 2025 and 67% are enrolled in Medi-Cal, state subsidized healthcare coverage for low-income Californians. In many rural areas, health centers are sometimes the only source of primary care.

Thornock said Shasta Community Health has patients who travel more than an hour to get care and provides a program that transports them to health facilities. Under Proposition 44, the program would not be considered patient services.

“It was designed to create for us what becomes an existential crisis in many cases,” he said.

The CPCA lawsuit states that Regan and the union began seeking to extort unionization from nonprofit hospitals through ballot measures in 2011 and used the same strategy to try to grow their membership among dialysis center workers beginning in 2017. In early 2022, they began targeting CPCA and health centers through legislation, the lawsuit stated.

The suit also alleges that Regan and UHW are in violation of a California law that prohibits a proponent of a ballot initiative from seeking, soliciting, bargaining for, or obtaining any money or a thing of value from any person or entity for abandoning or preventing an initiative from moving forward.

A week before the lawsuit became public, The Times reported that independent investigators hired by SEIU found in a report that Regan had tried to “extort” an SEIU state council endorsement of the billionaire tax from other California union leaders. An outside law firm that investigated internal charges against Regan found that he suggested to David Huerta, then president of SEIU California, that the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the billionaire tax on the November ballot. The state council later voted to remain neutral on the measure.

The law firm’s investigation, which was paid for by Service Employees International Union, substantiated an allegation that Regan threatened Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, over the council’s position on the ballot measure. The SEIU probe found an allegation that Regan also assaulted one of Orr’s predecessors in the job, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, to be credible.

A second investigation conducted by an outside law firm hired by SEIU California found sufficient evidence to substantiate a complaint that Regan bullied Jessica Bartholow, the council’s government relations director.

In interviews with investigators hired by the union and with The Times, Regan admitted to swearing at a staff member for SEIU California and adamantly denied bullying, threatening and assaulting women or seeking to force the state council to back his measure.

Regan remains in his job and alleges that he’s being unfairly targeted over his advocacy for the billionaire tax. SEIU, the national umbrella organization that represents local SEIU affiliates, has not taken any disciplinary action against him while an internal administrative review process moves forward.

Sources involved in negotiations over the billionaire tax said Regan also asked for concessions to grow his union in exchange for rescinding the measure from the ballot this year, which The Times previously reported.

Regan’s list of demands included union contracts with two private hospitals and a health clinic, an organizing neutrality agreement with healthcare clinics statewide, recognition of his union from dialysis clinics and for billionaires to remove measures they launched in response to his tax, according to two sources familiar with the talks who were granted anonymity to share details of the discussions.

The union leader called the allegation “categorically false” and denied that he asked for concessions for his union in exchange for removing the billionaire tax from the ballot.

Monday’s The Chase saw contestants Victor, Sadie, James and Amy attempt to beat Anne Hegerty

The Chase viewers had the same observation over the latest episode.

On Monday, 7 September, ITV viewers were delighted to see a new episode of the quiz show favourite hosted by Bradley Walsh. It comes as a The Chase star has confirmed there’s the ‘best episode we’ve ever had’ in the new series.

The contestants included Victor, 50, a photographer from Great Yarmouth, Sadie, 26, a pharmacy assistant from Stockport, James, 41, a copywriter from Coventry, and Amy, 38, a barrister originally from Hereford.

As part of the show, the Cash Builder round saw Victor earn £7,000 and he managed to beat Chaser, Anne Hegerty, bringing the money back to his team.

Next up it was Sadie, who revealed she had previously got to the semi-final of Mastermind last year. Sadie had an incredible Cash Builder round, where she secured £9,000.

However, Sadie unfortunately didn’t manage to beat Anne, 68, and was subsequently eliminated. Host Bradley, 66, said: “Wow, gutted! You are seriously a good player and that is a big loss for the team, seat number two.

“Sadie, so sorry to see you go, good luck with the Lego, however, you have been caught and The Chase is over!”, adding she was a “massive loss” to the team.

Anne also said that Sadie was “very, very good” and admitted she had done herself a “huge favour” by eliminating her on the show.

Taking to Twitter, now X, viewers were gutted to see Sadie go after an incredible Cash Builder round and complained that her questions seemed particularly hard.

One person said: “Sadie was robbed. #thechase”, a different account put: “Ahhhhh Sadie what a shaaame #TheChase” while another viewer added: “Tough questions Sadie #thechase”.

Elsewhere, a different viewer wrote: “Aww those questions were mean #thechase”, another wrote: “Tough questions to be fair #TheChase” while a different show watcher added: “Unlucky with those questions #thechase.”

Meanwhile, another fan wrote: “Wow. £9K is actually very good, Sadie. #TheChase” to which a different viewer added: “Sadie, good player. #thechase.”

However, it was bad news for the rest of the players too as later on the show, they were caught by Anne with just six seconds remaining.

The Chase continues on weeknights at 5pm on ITV and ITV X.

The brand new series shows the ‘unfiltered’ side of a well-known social media star

A beloved social media star’s new Netflix show has come under fire just hours after landing on the platform.

The streaming giant added Earle Meets World to its lengthy reality TV roster on Friday (September 4), and it has already divided viewers. The eight-part show promised to showcase influencer Alix Earle’s “unfiltered” life away from social media feeds.

A synopsis teases: “Gen-Z’s ultimate It Girl, Alix Earle, is making the next big jump in her career. Can she balance her burgeoning business empire with being that unfiltered, twenty-something, hot mess that America fell in love with? Now she’s taking her candid chaos from your FYP to TV… and nothing is off limits.”

We follow the 25-year-old as she comes to terms with her first major breakup from long-term partner Braxton Berrios, as well address her ongoing feud with podcaster Alex Cooper.

Despite her online following of over 13 million, Alix’s venture into TV has been hit with brutal reviews. One viewer took to TikTok to confess they switched off the show during its first episode, penning: “I can’t get past the first 20 minutes and I love Alix and reality shows.”

Get Netflix free with Sky

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£5.99

FREE

Sky

Get the deal here

Sky is giving away a free Netflix subscription with its new Sky Stream TV bundles, including the £15 Essential TV bundle.

This lets members watch live and on-demand TV content without a satellite dish or aerial and includes hit shows like Stranger Things and The Last of Us.

Critics have also shared scathing verdicts, with Variety stating: “The same relatability that makes Earle a dependable brand ambassador also makes her everyday life almost painfully boring to watch, with the few juicy nuggets either overhyped, downplayed or both.”

Time agreed, writing: “If the show made a genuine effort to fulfil the 25-year-old social media star’s vow to reveal the rawest, most intimate aspects of her life, then the only reasonable conclusion to draw from it would be that there just isn’t much to see.”

Meanwhile, The Sunday Guardian published a more generous review stating: “Fans of Alix Earle will probably enjoy getting more access to her family, career and personal life”. And it seems they were spot on because Alix’s fanbase are completely hooked on the series.

“I love the show so far,” someone posted on TikTok. Another person added: “LOVING already so excited to watch more.”

A third viewer praised the show for its authentic approach to the genre, saying: “As someone that is a chronic reality TV watcher, the show is not over-produced and that has been my biggest qualm with the reality TV shows that I watch.”

Someone else admitted: “No guys I’m so invested,” and a final captivated viewer shared: “Oh they got me hook, line and sinker!”

All eight episodes of Earle Meets World are streaming now on Netflix

“Obsession,” the indie horror movie written and directed by Curry Barker, has proved to be one of this year’s most successful films. Made for a reported budget of about $750,000, it has earned more than $500 million at the global box office since Focus Features released it in May — the biggest hit in the distributor’s history, according to a new lawsuit.

But one of its producers, Leonora Ann Darby, is claiming she hasn’t received her share of the profit.

Darby, who rose to become one of three producers at Tea Shop Productions, the U.K. company behind the movie, sued Tea Shop, its Delaware affiliate The Tea Shop & Film Company, and co-founders James Harris and Mark Lane in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The 135-page complaint lays out 10 causes of action — among them, breach of contract, retaliation for wage complaints, whistleblower retaliation and unfair competition — and describes a seven-year pattern of “unequal treatment and broken compensation promises.” Darby has demanded a jury trial.

Harris and Lane allegedly treated Darby “as their subordinate, including in a highly demeaning and gendered manner,” and continually refused to compensate her properly, “culminating in ruthlessly cutting Darby out of the overall net profits” for “Obsession,” the lawsuit says.

“Ms. Darby has brought serious and substantial claims, supported by a detailed factual record,” Darby’s lawyer Thomas K. Richards of the Beverly Hills firm Singh, Singh & Trauben, said in a statement. “She is confident in her case and intends to pursue it fully.”

Tea Shop has already rejected the core of her claim. In an Aug. 13 letter attached to the complaint as an exhibit, the company’s lawyer wrote that Darby “was an employee and, subsequently, a consultant” who has never been a member, shareholder or owner of Tea Shop, and therefore has no right to inspect the company’s financial records. The parties’ written agreement, the letter says, does not entitle her to profit participation or collection-account status on “Obsession” or on any other film not previously identified in writing, and she “has been compensated in accordance with the parties’ agreement.” Tea Shop Productions did not respond to a request for comment.

Darby is credited on screen as an executive producer of “Obsession,” rather than as a producer — a decision she says the company made despite Lane’s absence from the production in 2025 and limited involvement with the film. She claims she functioned as a lead producer under Tea Shop’s own internal definition, a distinction at the center of the case, because the profit deal she is suing over applies only to films she lead-produced.

The complaint alleges that she stepped in at a point when the edit had been taken away from Barker and handed to a new editor, leaving the movie “mired in an edit that was not working.” She “provided fundamental and critical creative and structural notes that changed the course of the film,” “advocated heavily” for the edit to be returned to Barker, and recommended the reshoots that followed, according to the suit. She then took on the post-production, credits, clearance and delivery work that got the film finished in time for its Toronto International Film Festival premiere, where Focus bought it for about $16.2 million — well above the $14 million to $15 million that trades were reporting during negotiations.

Once the value of the movie became apparent, the lawsuit alleges, she was iced out. She wasn’t invited to the Los Angeles premiere and was “deliberately” cut out of major trade articles and interviews, the suit says, including a May profile of Harris and Lane that didn’t name her. Her name was added to that piece in August, after she complained.

Darby first started working at the company in 2019, as a development and production executive. In this role, the lawsuit said, she was responsible for originating and developing projects, attaching filmmakers, assembling financing and producing films from preproduction through delivery. She originated and produced movies including “A Banquet,” “Tornado” and “The Surfer,” which stars Nicolas Cage.

In 2024, she and Tea Shop allegedly reached an agreement raising her salary to 100,000 pounds and entitling her to a third of the net profits Tea Shop itself receives on films she lead-produced, “together with direct participation in the applicable collection account management agreements” — the deals that govern how money from a film is divided among its participants.

Tea Shop has allegedly honored that arrangement on other films. On “Obsession,” the complaint says, Darby was paid $300,000 out of the film’s initial minimum guarantee after Tea Shop directed her company, Runt Productions, to invoice for “Services: Obsession.” That payment, the suit argues, was fixed compensation for her producing services — not a settlement, release or buyout, with no writing calling it full and final.

In addition to her share of Tea Shop’s profits on “Obsession,” Darby is seeking a full accounting for several projects as well as unpaid wages, expenses and relief for retaliation.

Los Angeles County announced Monday that it had filed a lawsuit against State Farm General after hundreds of victims of last year’s devastating wildfires complained that their claims had been delayed, denied or underpaid.

The lawsuit alleges that State Farm engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices that kept victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires from receiving what they were entitled to under their policies.

County officials said their investigation into the complaints found unreasonable delays in processing claims, as well as “systematic underpayments.”

Officials said they also found that State Farm had illegally suppressed smoke damage claims.

“Survivors are just asking for what’s right,” L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said at a Monday news conference.

Bob Devereux, a State Farm spokesman, said in a statement that the company would respond to the lawsuit through the legal process.

“State Farm General strongly disagrees with Los Angeles County’s characterization of our wildfire claims response,” he said.

Devereux said that State Farm has so far paid more than $6.2 billion on claims related to the two wildfires, including about $1 billion for smoke-related damage. About 78% of the claims have been closed, he said.

“We continue working directly with customers whose claims remain open and evaluating each claim based on the facts of the loss and the coverage provided by the customer’s policy,” he said.

“Our focus remains on helping customers recover,” he said.

Wildfire victims praised county officials for the lawsuit, which was filed in L.A. County Superior Court.

Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, said at the news conference that, in the months after the fires, it became apparent in talking to victims that those with State Farm policies were not getting the benefits they had paid for.

She said for those families, insurance had become “a barrier to recovery” rather than a safety net.

“Nineteen months after the fires, families are still suffering,” she said.

The county’s investigation included looking at complaints that Chen’s group and others had collected, as well as hundreds of other documents from State Farm policyholders.

County officials said that State Farm “failed to substantially comply” with their requests for documents and information during their investigation.

With more than 2.8 million residential and commercial policies, State Farm is California’s largest private insurer.

The county’s lawsuit includes dozens of complaints of L.A. County fire victims.

“After six decades of paying thousands a year for insurance, we expect them to honor their agreement,” said one family.

Many families say the insurer refused to test their homes for toxins left by smoke.

The lawsuit claims that State Farm “drastically lowballed” estimates of financial losses for destroyed or partially damaged homes.

“They offered us $11,000 to remediate our five-bedroom house,” complained one family. ”That’s only 13% of the actual cost.”

According to the California Department of Insurance, 11,300 State Farm policyholders filed homeowner claims arising from last year’s L.A. County fires.

The lawsuit asks the court to require State Farm to pay full restitution to policyholders, as well as civil penalties for violating state law.