Leighton Meester’s past has always been rather sketchy, through no fault of her own. Her mom was a drug-runner who served time in a federal prison in Texas, and Leighton was born in a half-way house and she spent the first years of her life being taken care of by relatives while her mother completed her prison sentence. It’s a wonder Leighton turned out to be a successful and seemingly well-adjusted, talented, and relatively sane individual. Leighton is so successful, in fact, that she’s been sending money to her mom for years as a way to help support her sick little brother. Unfortunately, Leighton’s mom spent all of the money on plastic surgery, Botox and weaves instead of taking Leighton’s little bro to the doctor. So now Leighton is suing her mom! Good for her.

“Gossip Girl” star Leighton Meester is suing her mother, claiming her mom diverted money Leighton sent to her little brother and used it for plastic surgery, Botox and hair extensions.

According to the suit … obtained by TMZ … Leighton’s mom refused to work, but Leighton felt badly for her younger brother Lex, who has severe medical issues. So Leighton sent her mom $7,500 a month so she could provide for Lex.

But the suit claims the mother, Constance Meester, used the money for cosmetic procedures and other personal expenses.

According to the suit, Constance even tried to convince Leighton … they had an oral contract requiring Leighton to pay her $10,000 a month for life. Leighton says it’s a total lie.

Leighton claims her mom threatened to file a $3 million lawsuit against her unless Leighton started coughing up the dough. Leighton wants the judge to declare there’s no contract between her and her mom.

[From TMZ]

This is why I’ve always had more affection for Leighton than for Blake Lively. Leighton is hardcore. Leighton will sue the crap out of her own mother. Plus, Leighton is such a good girl at heart that she wants to make sure that her sick little brother is taken care of. Perhaps Lex could move in with Leighton for a time? Obviously, Constance doesn’t give a crap.

Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame.

Here are some new photos of Kim Kardashian and her GIANT fiancée Kris Humphries (typo spelling: Hump-phried) at some event in LA yesterday. The event is not important. What’s important: Kim’s cat-face, which isn’t looking too bad here, and her GIANT fiancée. He’s like an ogre compared to her. And what always surprises me about Kris is that he seems to genuinely like Kim. As I’ve said before, I don’t think he’s that bright. Here’s a question: do you think that Kim actually gives a crap about Kris? I don’t. I think he’s willing and she just wants to be married. I think she’s still obsessed with Reggie Bush. Case in point: Kim has just thrown a fit over an Old Navy commercial starring a Kim-look-alike named Melissa Molinaro. The commercials have been airing for months, so what’s the big deal now? Oh, right. Melissa is dating Reggie now.

A wedding isn’t the only thing on Kim Kardashian’s summertime agenda. On Wednesday, the reality star, 31, sued Old Navy and its parent company, the Gap Inc., in an L.A. court over a popular Old Navy ad featuring a Kim lookalike, singer-model Melissa Molinaro. Kardashian alleges that that the “Super C-U-T-E” ad, which began airing in February and became a YouTube phenomenon, violated her publicity rights — and that consumers may mistakenly believe Kardashian herself is endorsing Old Navy’s clothes.

She seeks unspecified damages and wants to prevent Old Navy from using a lookalike in future ads.

Explains a source close to the engaged reality star and mogul: “She’s protecting her brand ..She can’t let another brand use her image to sell clothes!”

Indeed, the legal papers state that Kardashian “has invested substantial time, energy, finances and entrepreneurial effort in developing her considerable professional and commercial achievements and success, as well as in developing her popularity, fame, and prominence in the public eye.”

“She’s a businesswoman who has to protect her brand,” the insider tells Us. “Bottom line.”

As it happens, Old Navy ad star Molinaro is now dating Reggie Bush — Kardashian’s ex-beau, with whom she split in early 2010.

[From Us Weekly]

Yeah… I just watched the commercial again (below), and the chick just looks a hell of a lot like Kim, but it’s not like Old Navy is claiming that she’s in any way affiliated with Kardashian, Inc. Melissa just has a very similar cat-face, which makes me think that Reggie Bush is still obsessed with Kim as well.

Maybe Kim’s just mad because this song is WAY better than “Jam (Turn It Up)”?

Photos courtesy of Fame.

I knew I would regret not yet seeing Rounders. Tobey Maguire has been sued by a victim of a ponzi scheme artist who embezzled investor funds to run extremely high stakes underground poker games with celebrity rollers like Tobey, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck. Tobey was one of the major winners of the games, which were held biweekly at suites in luxury hotels. He’s being sued along with other winning participants in an attempt to recoup investor money. Maguire is estimated to have made up to tens of millions of dollars from these poker games, funded illegally by unwitting investors. The lawsuit has him winning over $300k, but a source estimates it at around $1 million a month for nearly three years. And I thought Ben Affleck was the big gambler. Affleck, Damon and DiCaprio also took part in the games, according to a named source, but they didn’t win much and are not being named in a lawsuit. This is a story about to break in Star Magazine, and Radar has the details. They make the games sound so underground and high security, I can hear Oceans 11 music playing in the background. (Actually I’m listening to this song now, so it fits.) I can see Damon and Affleck sauntering jokingly into the low-lit rooms in slow mo while Tobey sits there after a 14 hour bender, seething and determined to win back his money and them some. DiCaprio probably bailed after he lost a few times.

Spider-Man star Tobey Maguire is among more than a dozen high-profile Hollywood people being sued in connection with a mega-millions illegal gambling ring that ran high-stakes underground poker games, Star magazine is reporting exclusively.

An FBI investigation into Brad Ruderman, the CEO of Ruderman Capital Partners, uncovered how he lost $25 million of investor money in clandestine poker games held on a twice weekly basis in suites at the luxury Beverly Hills hotel, Four Seasons, and the Viper Room on Sunset Boulevard.

Tinsel town A-listers Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon also played in the no-limit Texas Hold ‘em games which had a buy-in of $100,000, multiple members of the ring told Star. DiCaprio, Affleck and Damon are not being sued.

Others who were part of the secret society and are facing hefty lawsuits include billionaire businessman Alex Gores, The Notebook director Nick Cassavetes, Welcome Back, Kotter star Gabe Kaplan, Paris Hilton’s infamous sex tape partner, Rick Salomon, record label owner Cody Leibel and Las Vegas nightlife entrepreneur and real-estate developer Andrew Sasson, among others.

Now, as Ruderman sits in a Texas jail until 2018, convicted on two counts of wire fraud and two counts of investment adviser fraud, lawyers for the clients whose funds he embezzled are filing a series of civil suits against those who won big in the illegal poker dens, in the hope of recouping some of their lost savings.

The games were “exclusive events, by invitation only, and that there was a regular roster of players consisting of wealthy celebrities, entrepreneurs, attorneys and businessmen,” according to the lawsuit filed against Maguire in the United States Bankruptcy Court, in Los Angeles.

Ruderman lost $311,300 to Maguire, including one losing hand of $110,000, on July 30, 2007, it’s claimed.

The Ponzi mastermind used clients’ money to “pay for gambling losses at clandestine, high stakes poker games that were operated without any licenses or permits,” the suit said.

“As part of the scheme, funds invested in (Ruderman) were transferred to persons such as Defendant (Maguire), who received the funds on account of Ruderman’s gambling losses and on account of Defendant’s gambling winnings.”

In their attempt to win back Ruderman’s losses, the trustee has claimed Maguire is “not entitled to receive the transfers from the Debtor, which transfers were compromised of improperly-diverted investor funds.”

In a deposition of the alleged ringleader of the operation, which took in tens of millions of dollars beginning in 2006 through 2009, Maguire is described as a “very, very frequent player,” in the games, which ended in 2009.

Maguire won as much as $1 million a month over a period of three years, one source told Star, which is on newsstands Wednesday.

“That means he could have made up to $30 to $40 million from these games,” the whistle-blowing card shark predicted.

Under California law, it’s illegal to play for money at underground poker clubs, although it is a crime rarely prosecuted. None of the participants are under criminal investigation, Star has been told.

Indeed, it’s understood Maguire has hired an attorney to strenuously defend the allegations against him, who will argue the games were not illegal.

In a world exclusive investigation, Star detailed how the A-list aces used secret passwords to play in the covert games that were so intense, the door was manned by armed guards in bulletproof vests.

Inside the rooms, tucked away in different locations around Los Angeles, high-rollers laid down wads of cash on felt-top tables presided over by professional dealers who were part of the operation’s hierarchy.

One of the participants, Dan Bilzerian, told Star that he regularly played against DiCaprio, Affleck and Maguire.

Damon, according to Bilzerian, played irregularly.

While Affleck, who won an Academy Award for his screenplay Good Will Hunting, impressed players with his poker skills, both DiCaprio and Damon did not fair as well, Star reported.

“Matt never won,’’ another whistle-blowing player told the magazine.

“In truth, Leo is a tight ass. When he lost $50,000 the look in his eyes was obvious he was crazy.”

[From Radar]

So does this partially explain why Tobey is the new reluctant face of Prada? The dude is running scared, afraid he’ll be forced to open up his bank account to pay back some of his ill gotten gains. If this article is accurate, he may have made nearly as much money playing poker as he did from playing Spiderman. It sounds like he worked longer and harder at it too.

As bad as it sounds, this story made me think “well at least these dudes were just gambling illegally and weren’t off hiring hookers.” That’s not to say those two things are in any way mutually exclusive. They go together like cookies and milk.

Tobey is shown in November and December, 2010 with his wife, Jennifer Meyer and their two daughters. Credit: WENN.com and Fame. Ben and Matt are shown playing poker in a charity tournament in 2009.

Okay, I’m going to try to break down this story in parts, because it gets kind of complicated with all of the threats of lawsuits and cease and desist letters. Basic story: In Touch Weekly’s cover story claims that Kim Kardashian screwed around on her fiancé (then boyfriend) Kris Humphries with a football player named Bret Lockett. Let’s actually go through what ITW claims before we get into the possible legal repercussions.

ITW claims that Kim asked a friend to introduce her to New England Patriot Brett Lockett. After they were introduced, the tabloid claims they began exchanging sexts and even having “graphic phone sex.” Jezebel has a sample of some of the alleged texts exchanged by Kim and Bret, as recounted by an unnamed “friend” claiming to have seen the texts (Jezebel thinks the “friend” is Brett):

Kim: Mr
Bret: Yes Miss
Kim: How are you doll?
Bret: I’m good and you?
Kim: Why don’t you put in an effort and try and make me your girlfriend doll?
Bret: But don’t ask for something your[sic] not ready for
Kim: I’m sure I’m ready
Bret: What’s your schedule looking like the next few weeks? I want to see you
Kim: I’m free Mon after 11, then I’m kinda busy after. You should send me a SEXY picture
Bret: What are you doing the 19th to the 22nd?
Bret: What does Miss Kimmy want?
Kim: The picture
Bret: LOL. Your used to getting what you want, huh?
Kim: Yes so. I want it.

[From ITW via Jezebel]

Apparently, Bret also told the tabloid (directly, like he’s a named source in the article, so it seems like he’s actually coming out and claiming this, for real): “I knew this was a game to her, but this is what she does. She pursued me.” Brett and other sources say that the “affair” lasted five months – meaning that Brett and Kris were totally overlapping, I suppose.

Anyway, Kim slammed the report early Wednesday morning, threatening to sue both In Touch Weekly and Brett. Kim was alerted to the story before the tabloid came out, and her lawyer sent a threatening letter to ITW, saying that Kim would take legal action if they published, and claiming that the cheating allegations “are, at a minimum, damaging, defamatory, and an invasion of her privacy.” Kim went to E! News and said: “This is absolutely not true. I have no idea who this person is.”

Then, after Kim and her lawyers pushed back, Brett pushed back even harder. He went to TMZ and said that he’s not worried about a potential lawsuit because:

“…I mean, to be honest with you guys, it really doesn’t bother me [that Kim might sue] because when all the allegations are correct and all the facts are in place, it’s nothing to bother me at all. For her to say that, I mean, I’m actually not shocked that she said that, but at the end of the day, I know what it is and if she wants to go ahead and pursue with those actions, then that’s not a problem with me,” said Bret.

TMZ then asks “Where did you actually see her and hook up with her?” and the New England Patriots player responded: “What me and Kim do is what me and Kim do. All that other stuff is irrelevant and, I mean, it’s all he-said, she-said stuff. Everybody’s just ear hustling and wanting to know what it is, but at the end of the day, Kim knows what happened and I know what happened so, I mean Kim can deny this all she wants, but if she wants to go the legal route and start recalling text messages and conversations and pictures and all of that, then that’s not a problem.”

Kim’s lawyer Dennis A. Roach says, “For the record, none of the facts…are accurate,” but Bret is still sticking by his story that he and Kim had an emotional but not physical relationship.

[From Hollywood Life]

Will Kim sue me if I think Brett might be telling the truth? I think he might be telling the truth. There, I said it. But by all means, Kim, please sue ITW. They’re trashy. But it’s difficult to just shove this aside as some kind of tabloid editor’s fantasy… the dude is not scared of going on the record and talking about it. Which is good enough for me.

Of course, now I’m starting to worry that all of this – the engagement and now the “affair” story – are all just some kind of storyline designed for the reality shows. Right? But Kim’s not that smart, is she?

Photos courtesy of WENN.

These are some new photos of Katy Perry at last night’s Logie Awards in Australia. She wore this odd green dress with some kind of screenprint of Man Ray’s photograph “Le Violon d’Ingres” (Ingres’s Violin). The combo of the green puffy sleeves, the screenprint and the bright blue shoes is all rather… eh. Katy thinks that this her signature, wearing bright colors and this kind of junk. It gets kind of boring to me.

In other Katy news, she’s suing an Australian tabloid who recently claimed that she was screwing around on husband Russell Brand. The alleged other man? Producer Benny Blanco. According to the Australian tabloid NW, Katy was having an “intimate relationship” with Benny. Katy is suing the NW’s publisher, AP, with a statement saying: “By reason of the publication of the article, the plaintiff (Perry) has been gravely injured in her reputation and feelings (and) has suffered distress, embarrassment and humiliation.” Katy also says that NW has refused to apologize for the story “although it was clearly inaccurate”. She could win six figures! Yeah, which publication has Katy screwing around on Russell? I thought most people had money on Russell screwing around on Katy…?

Below are photos from Katy’s recent perfume launch. I don’t care for this dress either. Bitch needs a new look.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Back in January, Star Magazine ran a front page cover story (image below) suggesting that Katie Holmes was a drug addict. The inside story (detailed here if you’re interested) was about how the auditing sessions in Katie and Tom’s Scientology cult could be addicting like drugs. The real details of Scientology’s scary brainwashing practices are more shocking than a drug addiction, but I understand Star going for a bait and switch cover with a more accessible angle. The cult stuff has been covered quite a bit before.

Well “Katie” aka the Sci Goons, sued Star Magazine for $50 million for libel as a result. That was back in early March. Since then, Star canned their editor and it doesn’t seem like a coincidence. Star has now issued a front page apology for insinuating that Katie was addicted to drugs and they’re giving an undisclosed donation to a charity of her choice. I was assuming Katie’s charity would be Scientology-related, but according to Reuters it’s the “Dizzy Feet Foundation,” which Katie co-founded and helps give dance classes to underprivileged youth.

Star Magazine just issued a MASSIVE mea culpa to Katie Holmes — publishing an apology on the COVER of its latest issue … after the tabloid printed a headline suggesting Katie was a drug addict.

Katie filed a $50 million defamation lawsuit against the magazine last month, claiming Star’s January headline — “ADDICTION NIGHTMARE! Katie DRUG SHOCKER! — was “untrue, unethical and unlawful.”

Katie’s rep tells TMZ, the lawsuit is now water under the bridge … that it’s been settled … and Star’s publisher American Media even made a “substantial” donation to Katie’s charity.

As for Star’s in-mag apology — it reads in part, “Star did not intend to suggest that Ms. Holmes was a drug addict or was undergoing treatment for a drug addiction. Star apologizes to Ms. Holmes for any misperception …”

Katie released her own statement today, saying, “I’m pleased that this lawsuit could be resolved amicably and accept American Media’s apology.”

[From TMZ]

At least the money is going to decent charity. Maybe Star will clean up its act a little under Radar Online editor David Perel, who is taking over for former editor Candace Trunzo. I hope they stay trashy but get a little more truthful.

Star Scan via CoverAwards.

The cover in which they apologize (see title across the top)

The cover that Star was sued over from January, 2011

Katie is shown out in Beverly Hills on 4/27/11. Credit: Fame

In July of last year, we heard that an aspiring actress was suing David Boreanaz for sexual harassment stemming from a series of incidents after she met him on the set of Bones, where she had just filmed a bit part. This news came after Boreanaz had admitted cheating on his wife and was linked with at least two mistresses, some porn star/stripper and Rachel Uchitel.

The woman suing Boreanaz was repped by lawyer Gloria Allred, who has a history of representing mistresses who want to shake down wealthy and famous cheaters after they’re done with them. Only the details in this case sound more like typical harassment. According to the lawsuit, Boreanaz promised to help the “alleged” victim with her career in the fall of 2009, then proceeded to send her multiple text messages, including one of his d*ck. He allegedly offered to give her a ride somewhere, but then drove to a park, made advances that she fended off, and then masturbated when she made it clear she wasn’t interested. In another incident in his trailer, he tried to make a move on her and was again rebuffed. It sounds sketchy to me that she kept seeing him after he was so wildly inappropriate, to say the least, but she maintains that he promised to help her with her career and she believed him.

It looks like we may be hearing the last of this story, though, because the case has been dismissed after Boreanaz and the woman reached an undisclosed settlement. Maybe the creep learned his lesson and will keep it in his pants when it comes to sexually harassing would-be actresses on set. He’s surely still got a wandering dick, though, but it will be seeking out paid professionals and gold diggers in the future. Whether it will cost him less in the long run remains to be seen.

David with the victim in a handout photo from her lawyer:

David is shown int he header with his wife in April, 2010. Credit: WENN.com.

With his wife and son in October, 2009. They also have a daughter born in 2009.

Bret Michaels is suing the Tony Awards for a 2009 injury he suffered when a set piece descended on his head after his performance. (Video of that is below.) About ten months after that incident he had a life threatening subarachnoid brain hemorrhage, which he’s described as feeling like a gunshot to the head and like his “brain exploded.” Bret’s lawyer says they’re suing in part because producers played off the incident and blamed Bret for it, when it was actually their fault. It also sounds like the parties tried to settle and couldn’t reach an agreement on a dollar amount.

Bret Michaels filed a lawsuit Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court against the network and the Awards, stemming from his on-stage injury during a Rock of Ages-inspired performance at the 2009 Tony Awards. In the suit, Michaels claims he asked producers whether there were any instructions as to where he should stand on the stage during his performance, but was only told to “simply exit the stage from the rear.” After singing “Nothin’ But a Good Time” — one of the songs used in Broadway’s Rock of Ages — the Poison rocker was hit by a piece of stage scenery. (Michaels had to check into the hospital for X-rays and stitches after suffering a broken nose and cut lip.) Says the suit, “Michaels was never told that the scenery piece would be descending or given any warning of the existence of the dangers it presented. Quite the opposite, Michaels specifically asked for instructions regarding how to exit after his performance and was just told to walk off the rear of the stage — in what was ultimately the danger zone.”

In the suit, Michaels, who is seeking unspecified damages, also claims the producers faulted him for the mix-up, telling press that he had “missed his mark.” The suit also connects the Tonys injury with Michaels’ well-publicized subarachnoid hemorrhage, which proved to be nearly fatal for the musician. “One of the most common causes of this type of hemorrhage is head trauma — exactly like the one Michaels suffered at the hands of the Tony Awards.” CBS is not commenting on the suit; the Tonys have yet to respond to EW’s request for comment. (UPDATE: Michaels’ lawyer, Alex Weingarten, issued the following statement to press regarding the suit: “The Tony Awards dropped a piece of the stage on Bret’s head, and then instead of doing the right thing, joked about it and played it off for ratings … Bret never wanted to file a lawsuit, but the Tony Awards have left us with no choice. They must be held accountable for almost killing Bret, and that is what we are going to do.”)

[From EW.com]

I don’t blame Bret for suing over this, especially after he had a brain hemorrhage that could have easily killed him or left him permanently disabled. (From what I understand, it’s unclear what caused Michaels’ brain hemorrhage, but they’re often preceded by head injuries.) He’s doing fine now, but it was touch and go for him for a long time.

Here’s Bret on Piers Morgan earlier this month describing what he was doing when he had his hemorrhage – he was watching Busty Cops 3! He jokes about it here but I saw the rest of the interview and he went through hell both with the immediate hemorage and in the tough recovery period. At one point he thought he was saying goodbye to his daughters and that they would have to grow up without him. (Here’s a link to the transcript of that.)

Here’s video of what happened to Bret at the Tonys in 2009. It looks brutal.

Bret Michaels and his plastic fiance, Kristi Gibson, are shown on 3/19/11. They look like wax figures! Credit: Nector Marmolejos/WENN.com

Yesterday we heard the advance news that Katie Holmes (aka Tom Cruise and the butt hurt Scientology goons) were planned to sue the parent company of Star Magazine for $50 million in damages over a misleading recent cover story that suggested that Holmes had a drug problem. The story inside the magazine focused on how addicting and mind-altering Scientology “treatments” can be, and that was probably the root of Cruise’s issue with the piece. The lawsuit has happened, and Katie’s rep has issued a statement that the cover was misleading and that it was “malicious” and played “a cheap trick on the public.”

Katie Holmes is no longer sitting idly as the tabloids write lies about her. The actress has filed a libel lawsuit seeking $50 million in damages from Star magazine after the weekly published a cover story that insinuated Holmes is a drug addict.

“Of all the fabricated stories that continue to be published about me, this instance is beyond the pale. The publisher knew this outrageous story was false and printed it anyway to sell magazines,” Holmes told PopEater in a statement.

The cover photo shows Holmes looking tired and upset, with the tagline: “Addiction Nightmare: Katie Drug Shocker! The real reason she can’t leave Tom.” Inside the issue, the story does not say that Holmes uses drugs but focuses more on her use of an “e-meter” during Scientology sessions, which allegedly reflects past emotional experiences.

The lawsuit alleges that Holmes was defamed by the tabloid. According to her rep, Holmes was forced to file this lawsuit “to vindicate her reputation after American Media refused to retract its vicious lies about her.”

“Star Magazine’s malicious claims about Katie are untrue, unethical and unlawful. Not only do they cruelly defame Katie, they play a cheap trick on the public, making ridiculously false claims on the cover unsupported by anything inside. Someone should bring a class action to get all buyers their money back,” Holmes’ attorney Bert Fields said in an official statement.

In order to prove libel in U.S. courts, the plaintiff must prove defamation occurred and that injury to their reputation happened as a result.

Star Magazine is standing by their cover story, telling PopEater: “We have not been served with any papers yet, however Star fully stands behind the editorial integrity of what we have published concerning Ms. Holmes’ controversial use of the Scientology e-meter. The physical effect of the e-meter on its users is a matter of significant public concern, and we plan to vigorously defend the suit filed by Ms. Holmes. Our attorneys look forward to deposing Ms. Holmes about her experiences with Scientology and the e-meter, and expect that the case will be promptly dismissed by the court.”

Holmes and Cruise are frequently featured in the magazine with headlines suggesting that the actress is unhappy and wants out of her marriage.

Back in 2008, the actress reveled she was fed up with the tabloid lies being printed about her family. “I do know what is being said in the press. This is my family, and I do care about them. The stories are not OK. It eats away at me. Some of the crap that’s out there — it’s really frustrating the amount of s**t that’s out there!” she told Vanity Fair magazine.

[From Popeater]

This lawsuit is not going to go anywhere and Star is already pretty bold in their response to it. In Touch made much worse claims about David Beckham’s proclivity for hookers but his suit was recently thrown out because they couldn’t prove In Touch did it with malice. As I mentioned yesterday, Katie’s people (Tom’s) just want to send out a message that they don’t tolerate this and that it’s not true. What’s more is that they don’t want the tabloids using Tom and Katie’s celebrity to get the word out about how damaging Scientology can be.

Katie Holmes is shown at the MaxMara show in Milan on 2/24/11 with her mom. Credit: Fame

Katie Holmes is reportedly set to sue Star Magazine for a cover story they ran on her last month with the title “Addiction Nightmare: Katie Drug Shocker.” We covered that story, which just claimed that Katie was addicted to the Scientology cult’s auditing sessions with a crude lie detector called an “e-meter.” Former Scientologists told Star that treatments could be addicting in a way that mimicked drug addiction. As I mentioned back then, I think Star took the wrong angle on the story, because there are plenty more scary, terrible, mind-altering things that Scientology does to members that they could have focused on. Scientology basically stripped Nicole Kidman from access to her children and if Katie leaves Tom she probably fears she’d lose custody of Suri. That angle has been played out by the tabloids, though, so they had to find a new one.

Katie’s rep told The Wrap that she’s about to take out a lawsuit again American Media, the parent company that owns Star:

Katie Holmes is expected to file a libel lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday seeking $50 million in damages from American Media Inc., owner of Star magazine, TheWrap has learned.

The actress and wife of Tom Cruise is furious that the tabloid ran a cover that she considers deliberately defamatory, suggesting that she used drugs, according to her representative who spoke to TheWrap….

“The cover is libellous no matter what they say inside the magazine,” said the representative.

The tabloid frequently targets Holmes and Cruise as fodder for the celebrity gossip mill, most often suggesting that their marriage is in trouble, they’re about to separate, and Holmes is miserable.

In the past, Star has lamented Holmes’ “tortured life.” In October, the tabloid said that the couple’s “marriage contract collapses.”

To prove libel is difficult in U.S. courts. The plaintiff must prove defamation occurred, and that injury to their reputation happened as a result.

[From The Wrap via We Smirch]

I doubt this will be successful at all. It’s notoriously hard to successfully sue a tabloid in America for damages and celebrities rarely do it because it’s not worth the trouble. Katie and Tom’s people are going after Star to try and get them to stop running stories on them.

In October they ran “Tom & Katie: Broken Home – Marriage Deal Falls Apart”

In November it was Suri & Shiloh “Nannies Tell All”

In December it was “Separated: Fed Up Katie Leaving Tom”

A couple of weeks ago they ran “FBI Probe: Tearing Tom and Katie Apart”

Katie and Tom are hoping that Star and other tabloids get the message that they’re not to be messed with. Lawsuits are a common tactic of the very litigious Scientology cult and are often meant to harass anyone that dares question them or their illegal practices. I’m surprised these two haven’t filed a lawsuit sooner. That’s not to say that Star has the right to run misleading cover stories about Katie and Tom or their family, just that it’s hard to sue over it in the US. Maybe TomKat should take a hint from Brad and Angelina and sue a British tabloid first. Suits against tabloids in the UK seem to have a higher success rate.

Update: Tom Cruise successfully sued a gay porn actor for $10 million in 2001 after the man claimed he had an affair with Cruise. It’s unknown whether Cruise has ever collected and the man claimed he didn’t have the money anyway. Cruise also successfully sued The Daily Express, a British publication, in England in 1998 for a story claiming his marriage with Nicole Kidman was a sham. He accepted undisclosed damages for that story. Cruise has never sued a US tabloid from what I can find, although he did threaten to sue a publication called The Beast in 2004 for calling him one of the most loathsome people of the year.