Evan Rachel Wood sued for $30 million by producers of '10 Things I Hate About You' sequel
Actress Evan Rachel Wood was sued on Thursday for $30 million by the producers of the proposed sequel to 10 Things I Hate About You for breach of written agreement and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after Wood decided to leave the project almost a year ago.
According to the 10-page complaint filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, 10 Things LLC (the producers) alleges that Wood was paid $300,000 for the lead role in 10 Things I Hate About Life, but then “seemingly changed her mind about desiring to complete the film during principal photography,” and did not provide any legal justification for refusing to fulfill her contractual obligations. The filed complaint claims that Wood’s departure from the project has caused the plaintiff to suffer “significant and extensive damages and financial harm, including, but not limited to, the loss of, at a minimum, $6,000,000.00 in equity investments, costs and related expenses in the Picture, financing costs and expenses in the amount of, at minimum, $500,000.00, lost profits in the amount of, at a minimum, $20,000,000.00, and additional general and special damages in the amount of $500,000,000.00.”
In a statement to E! News, a representative for Woods said, “The law suit is preposterous and simply a bullying tactic from financially troubled producers.” According to the representative, production came to a halt in February 2013 when the producers ran out of money, and that “even after that, Evan agreed to resume production in Nov. 2013, by which time the producers said they would have cleared up their issues.”
However, production on 10 Things I Hate About Life did not resume in Nov. 2013, and Woods was not paid the money that was owed. “Repeated subsequent promises by the producers to resume production and pay Evan also turned out to be false. Enough is enough. The producers, not Evan, have breached contract.”
The complaint filed by 10 Things LLC, however, recounts a different story. The plaintiff said that four weeks into principal photography, on or around Jan. 14, 2013, it exercised its contractual right to briefly suspend production. Then, in February 2013, Wood informed “Producer that, for personal reasons, she was unable and unwilling to continue with principal photography at the present time, and would be unable to recommence principal photography until approximately November 2013,” after which Wood decided not return to the project.
Wood gave birth to a son, her first child, in July 2013.