Actor Kevin Costner recently suffered a legal setback when a judge denied his motion to dismiss a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him. The suit, brought by stunt double Devyn LaBella in May, alleges that Costner and the production of “Horizon 2” compelled her to perform in an unscripted simulated rape scene without prior notification or the mandatory presence of an intimacy coordinator, which is a direct violation of SAG-AFTRA union rules. Judge Jon Takasugi’s decision means LaBella's case can proceed, effectively rejecting Costner’s attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, designed to protect free speech from frivolous litigation.

LaBella's lawsuit details the incident, stating that it occurred in May 2023 during the filming of “Horizon 2.” She claims she was asked to stand in for actress Ella Hunt, who had reportedly refused to participate in the scene. According to LaBella, an actor was then directed to pin her down, straddle her, and violently lift her skirt, an experience she describes as traumatizing and humiliating. Following the incident, the film's intimacy coordinator reportedly authored a report documenting several breaches of union protocols related to the scene’s handling.

In response, Kevin Costner, through his attorney Marty Singer, has vehemently refuted the allegations. Singer described the claims as “patently false” and suggested they were fabricated to damage Costner’s reputation and secure an “unjustified payday.” Costner's legal team also presented statements from various actors and crew members who claimed the scene was not a “simulated rape” and that LaBella did not appear to object at the time of filming.

Costner’s anti-SLAPP motion argued that the “Horizon” films, which aim to portray “the horrific struggles endured by women” in the American West, including their vulnerability to violence, constituted First Amendment-protected expression on a matter of public concern. While Judge Takasugi expressed “somewhat skeptical” that the specific scene in question was intended to portray such struggles, he acknowledged the film's overall status as an expressive work protected by the First Amendment. However, the motion ultimately failed on its second requirement, as Costner's defense could not demonstrate that LaBella’s claims lacked minimal merit. The judge concluded that LaBella’s allegations, when accepted as true for the purpose of the motion, were not frivolous, thereby allowing the lawsuit to move forward.

Kate McFarlane, one of LaBella’s attorneys, applauded the judge's ruling, emphasizing that the creative process should not grant individuals in positions of power “complete impunity to abuse women.” McFarlane stated her legal team's confidence in their position and their preparedness to counter any further tactics by the defendants aimed at preventing the case from reaching a jury. The judge did, however, dismiss one of the ten causes of action, an alleged violation of the Bane Act, a law intended to combat hate crimes. This particular claim was dismissed due to the absence of any allegation of a threat of physical violence, which is a necessary element for establishing such a claim.