Film producer Leonora Ann Darby has sued Tea Shop Productions and its executives, James Harris and Mark Lane, alleging that she was denied promised compensation and profit participation after helping rescue the company’s horror film Obsession, which has grossed nearly $510 million worldwide.
Darby filed the 10-count breach of contract complaint on August 28 at the Los Angeles Superior Court, accusing Harris and Lane of subjecting her to years of unequal treatment, broken compensation promises and what she described as demeaning and gendered treatment.
According to the 135-page complaint, Darby joined Tea Shop Productions in 2019 when she said the company was struggling, after Harris and Lane offered her a role as an equal producer with a stake in compensation, company direction, project decisions, financial transparency and business opportunities.
She alleged that the arrangement later changed, despite her increasing responsibilities within the company.
Darby claimed that by 2024, the producers had promised that she would receive one-third, or 33.33 per cent, of Tea Shop’s net profits from films she lead-produced, together with direct participation in applicable collection account management agreements.
The complaint alleged that Darby fulfilled her part of the agreement, progressing from development and production executive to one of the company’s three producers.
“Darby kept her side of that bargain,” the complaint stated, adding that between 2019 and 2026 she originated and developed projects, attached filmmakers, assembled financing, produced films through delivery, supervised post-production and handled legal, quality-control and operational issues.
Her dispute with the company centres particularly on Obsession, written and directed by Curry Barker and starring Inde Navarrette and Michael Johnston.
Darby alleged that she stepped in when the production encountered serious creative and post-production problems, including helping return Barker to the project after he had been removed and getting the film back on track.
The film, produced on a budget of less than $800,000, later became a major commercial success.
After its premiere and a reported $16.2 million sale to Focus Features at the Toronto International Film Festival, Obsession was released widely on May 15 and went on to generate nearly $510 million worldwide, according to the complaint.
Darby alleged that despite her role in salvaging the project, she was ultimately excluded from the overall net profits she believed she had been promised. “These Defendants failed to honor their promises and instead treated Darby as their subordinate, including in a highly demeaning and gendered manner, and continually refused to properly compensate her.”
It further accused Harris and Lane of “ruthlessly cutting Darby out” of the net profits from Obsession, which it described as Tea Shop’s biggest hit and one of the most successful independent films of all time.
Darby acknowledged that she received an additional $300,000 payment in connection with Obsession, but alleged that the payment did not reflect the compensation and profit participation to which she was entitled.
The complaint also cited emails and other correspondence which Darby says support her claims regarding the alleged compensation agreements and the treatment she received from Harris and Lane.
Beyond Obsession, Darby is seeking an accounting of profits and compensation relating to several other projects, including A Banquet, Bull, The Wasp, The Cut, Into the Deep, Tornado and The Surfer.
She is asking the court for unspecified damages and wages, as well as an equitable accounting of the films and other projects covered by the alleged agreements.
The lawsuit names Tea Shop Productions and related business entities, along with Harris and Lane individually.
Focus Features, which distributed Obsession, is not named as a defendant. Executive producer Jason Blum is also not a defendant in the case.
Darby has requested a jury trial.
The allegations contained in the complaint have not been proven in court, and the defendants have not been found liable.
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
