Wait, did Jason Sudeikis actually arrange for Olivia Wilde to be served?

This week, Olivia Wilde made an appearance at CinemaCon, where she made a presentation for Don’t Worry Darling, her second directorial effort. Don’t Worry Darling stars Harry Styles and Florence Pugh. Olivia and Harry began dating during filming in the fall of 2020, and they are still together now. Jason Sudeikis was reportedly quite hurt when – this is his version of events – Olivia dumped him and started up with Styles. He felt like she cheated on him. They’ve had disagreements about their two kids but they’ve been trying to work it out quietly. Or so we thought. Apparently, Jason has filed some papers in their ongoing custodial situation, and when Olivia was on stage at CinemaCon, a process server handed her a manila envelope with the notice from Jason’s lawyer. She was served ON STAGE!!

Jason Sudeikis claimed that he had no idea the process server would do that to Olivia on stage. I believed him, and I would put the blame more on his lawyers and whatever process-serving outfit they use. But questions apparently remain: who knew that Olivia even planned to appear at CinemaCon? Who was the female process server in the front row and how did she get credentialed? And is Jason lying? Hm. From The Wrap:

After Olivia Wilde was served custody papers onstage at CinemaCon on Tuesday, convention organizers are trying to figure out how the woman who served them was even able to get to the stage to do so. Speaking to Wrap editor Sharon Waxman for The WrapUp podcast on Thursday, John Fithian, the National Association of Theatre Owners president and CEO, admitted that show officials still don’t know who the woman was that served Wilde with the paperwork or how she became a registered attendee of the show.

“No, no we don’t,” Fithian said. “Because we we’ve looked at the security footage, and we know it was a registered delegate, because she had a badge. And we know it was a woman, but we can’t identify it. We don’t know who she was…. We don’t know how this person got a registered badge to get through security to get into the auditorium. So it’s — we just haven’t figured it out.”

That said, Fithian reiterated that CinemaCon security procedures were reevaluated and beefed up, and noted his own disappointment that the incident was even able to happen. “It’s unfortunate. And we’ve had this show running for 30 plus years, this has never happened,” he said. “And so, we have reevaluated our protocols, and we’ve already changed right here at the show. We’ve now got security at the front of the stage. But we’ve never had an incident like this before, because this is an industry show. This isn’t Comic Con, right? These people are invited to come to the show, they register, they register the occupations, they get their delegate badges.”

Wilde was onstage Tuesday during Warner Bros.’ presentation, promoting her upcoming film “Don’t Worry Darling.” But, while the director was speaking, she was suddenly interrupted by a woman who approached from the audience and slid a manila envelope across the stage to Wilde.

Individuals with knowledge of the show’s production said Wilde’s appearance had not been made public. Beyond Wilde’s circle and the CinemaCon production team, few — if any — people knew she would be there.

“Papers were drawn up to establish jurisdiction relating to the children of Ms. Wilde and Mr. Sudeikis,” a source told TheWrap on Thursday night. The source added that “Sudeikis had no prior knowledge of the time or place that the envelope would have been delivered as this would solely be up to the process service company involved and he would never condone her being served in such an inappropriate manner.”

But CinemaCon officials were skeptical about this, considering the few who were privy to Wilde’s presence in Las Vegas. One fuming official concluded that Sudeikis had done this on purpose. “He wanted to humiliate her,” said this official, who declined to speak on the record.

[From The Wrap]

See, that gives more nuance to the story. I didn’t realize that CinemaCon was so different from Comic-Con. I thought people off the street could buy tickets to CinemaCon, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. It seems invite-only, everyone screened and specific invitations given out to specific people (my guess: industry journalists, industry types and movie theater executives). So how *did* the process server get credentialed and somehow get seated in the front row? I also didn’t realize that Olivia’s appearance at the event was not pre-announced. Only insiders close to Olivia or close to the internal CinemaCon presentation schedule would have known. Hmmm…maybe Jason did have a hand in it? It’s fascinating!

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

159 Responses to “Wait, did Jason Sudeikis actually arrange for Olivia Wilde to be served?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Smile says:

    I hope he did not have a hand in this.

    • Grass Roots says:

      @Smile: Jason Sudekis HAD to have had a hand in this – there is no way this would have been allowed to happen without his direction and approval. I think it is a really ugly thing that was done to her. This feels like a public shaming and humiliation done to a woman by an ex. It’s disturbing.

      • kerfuffles says:

        I’m a lawyer. I get people served all the time and rarely ask for my client’s “direction and approval” as to how they are served. I may ask my client for information as to *where* they can be served, i.e., is there a store, golf course, coffee shop that they frequent? But I don’t ask my client for permission as to where to serve them or ask for their “direction” in how to serve them. I just get it done based on the information they provided me.

        Here, it would not be easy to serve a person with security around them and that probably live in secure homes and buildings with security gates/security guard. I could see JS telling his lawyer were Olivia was going to be “oh, she’s going to be at CinemaCon,” and then the process server coming up with an elaborate way to serve her there without JS knowing it was going to be in such an obvious way onstage.

        What is more interesting to me is why there was not an arrangement made between counsel as to accept service. When a lawyer asks another lawyer to accept service, the lawyer always has to tell the lawyer what’s in the papers they are serving – and usually send over a copy in advance. No lawyer would agree to accept service of something when it’s unknown WHAT they are accepting service of. Therefore, if a lawyer/party needs there to be an element of surprise in what is being served, they will not ask the other side to accept service and will instead have to get them served the other way. In family law this occurs when its a pretty contentious custody dispute and there needs to be an element of surprise in serving something like a TRO. Here, it seems like he wanted to establish jurisdiction over an upcoming custody dispute and counsel probably needed to surprise her so she would not try to perhaps take the kids to another state while she had custody to interrupt the period of time required to establish jurisdiction

        So THAT is what has piqued my interest. While I think the issue of who made the decision to serve her onstage is fascinating in and of itself (and I’m not saying JS DIDN’T know that was going to happen; I’m just saying he didn’t necessarily “direct and approve it”), I’m also super intrigued what is going on and in those papers such that there could not be an agreement worked out for her attorney to accept service. I think something big is afoot regarding custody if his attorney is working so hard to establish jurisdiction in a particular state. Though I hope not for their kids’ sake.

      • Ashley says:

        @kerfuffles is totally right. My best friend is mid-contentious-divorce and a) at some points a process server was needed and was super-awful in contacting both parties in an embarrassing way unintended by the parties and b) usually the lawyers accept service. So yeah, 99% of the time the divorcing parties have zero say in the matter except to give broad-stroke ideas of where the other party might be able to be reached. I can’t imagine that it would be in Jason’s interest to embarrass Olivia, legally or professionally, so the more likely thing is that this was an overeager process server.

      • snappyfish says:

        I also wondered why the lawyer’s hadn’t arranged to accept service. As for no one knowing she was at CinemaCon, that is inaccurate as it was advertised and hyped for awhile.

      • Ella says:

        To add to these excellent responses, there’s no way arranging to have his ex served onstage would be anything but horrific PR for Sudeikis. I think it’s unlikely he had anything to do with planning it.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        This sounds like a spin to point the finger directly at Jason. We have to assume quite a lot.

        It’s my understanding from an acquaintance that HAS attended these events that the screening is not as strong as this article leads one to believe. And forums DO announce who will be there in advance, but not always officially on a site or flyers.
        So, with that said this article is from Olivia’s people trying to swing things sympathetically for her.

        Awful she was served on stage, but this article is all spin and people eat it up until the next article. Then when the truth comes out weeks later no one cares that they were wrong.


      • Nic919 says:

        Having used process servers myself before I can easily see how the process server decided to go for drama when they were likely only told that she would be a cinecon. And since she’s the director of the film and that’s not a secret it wouldn’t be super hard to get in knowing that her film is being presented.

        But yes this could be avoided if her lawyers agreed to accept service on her behalf.

    • Trimdownmnchyboring says:

      I think the legal team just need to get the job done and she’s probably getting served there because she’s probably all over the place. Anyway, it’s embarrassing for her but it really makes him look pretty bad and desperate. Team Olivia

      • Sofia says:

        “People talk about you like they know you and they talk about your relationship as if they know what’s going on,” he said. “So imagine how weird that is. It’s brutal with any relationship, and we have kids, and without getting into specifics, you then see stuff online, like, this one journalist wrote: ‘I’m Team Amy.’ I’m like: ‘You’re a grown person. What are you talking about? This is a breakup. This is a family. This isn’t some game.’”

        -Will Arnett

  2. Trina says:

    With my longstanding policy of never giving the man the benefit of the doubt, I win again. Anyway, Sudeikis made a bad move here, because he pissed off people who aren’t Olivia. CinemaCon is furious. This won’t go well for him.

    • Beech says:

      This is creepy.

    • teecee says:

      Same. And time and again we are proved correct.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      We stood together today and here, just a few hours later, the universe tilts toward our belief once again.

      Why do people always give the man the benefit of the doubt while giving the woman not only no benefit of doubt but assume she earned the assumption of guilt.

      • Twin Falls says:


        On Fridays we smash the patriarchy.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        @TwinFalls solidarity!

      • nina says:

        He most likely asked the attorneys to serve her there because he is still pissed that she left him for a younger man. He did not consider the possibility that the fall out would be on him not her. Now he is back tracking so fast he cant keep his story straight. Nothing to do with the custody battle everything to do with humiliating her for daring to leave him for a younger man. Fragile male ego.

    • Kitten says:

      100, Trina. Your comments from yesterday were spot-on along with Tiffany’s and a few others.

    • Oh_Hey says:

      You win.
      I knew something about this smelt bad especially because they’ve both been in England and he could have served her privately there (before anyone says you have to serve them in the US I remind everyone of Prince Andrew getting served at a literal English palace).

      If her appearance was unannounced and even the CinemaCon people don’t believe Jason why should I?

    • Emma says:


      I am finally out of the ingrained habit of taking men’s excuses for bad behavior at face value. No matter how “charming” they seem.

    • MissMarirose says:

      Well, I have a longstanding policy of never trusting lawyers, so I’m not quite there yet because Sudeikis didn’t directly hired the process server. The lawyer did. And lawyers are scum until proven otherwise.
      Also, the source for Sudeikis’ “knowledge” is the producer of CinemaCon who can’t explain how they let this server in, so they have every reason to divert attention from their own failure. How would this official even know whether Sudeikis actually knew about this?

      • nina says:

        A lawyer will usually inform a client if they are unable to serve someone and ask the client if he/ she has any idea where the person might be, before they will take such drastic measures.
        This is totally on him, his lawyer, his actions. If his lawyer did it without informing him, congratulations to Jason Sudeikis, his lawyer just effed up his public persona as a likeable guy and outed him as a possible douche bag.

    • AlpineWitch says:

      Yesterday I avoided to comment as almost everyone on this site can’t stand Olivia Wilde for some reason or another, and many commenters blamed her. I really appreciated your comments Trina and I am curious to see how all this ends.

      We’ve given far worse people the benefit of the doubt (J. Depp or B. Pitt) and J. Sudeikis always came across as creepy and dodgy to me – I know it’s just my gut feeling and nothing more, but something about him always rubbed me off the wrong way….

  3. SarahCS says:

    The plot very much thickens.

    Taken at face value yesterday, going to these lengths to serve her (reminiscent of Andrew) suggested she had been avoiding it. Not in line with how they had been (apparently) operating as co parents but what do we really know about the current state of that relationship. I saw one comment questioning how everyone seemed to be leaping to the defence of the likeable white guy and it is interesting to see how our biases can kick in.

    Clearly someone went to great lengths to make this into an embarrassing moment and publicity stunt as is becoming even clearer and if he is behind it, suggests a level of arrogance that he thought that wouldn’t come out.

    • SarahCS says:

      To add – I have never been served so have no idea about how this works in the real world, I think a lot of us jumped to the conclusion of ‘avoidance’ because this is the only context in which we’ve seen this sort of thing.

      • Brendar says:

        Avoidance doesn’t need to be deliberate either. I had someone once try to serve me three times but couldn’t get through the gate at the front of the community. Gate never told anyone they tried to.

        But, my ex also harassed me by telling me that I “couldn’t be out of town because he was about to serve me!” and that I was “going to be served!!” How much of that was his delusions of power and how much of that was actual knowledge of his attorney’s process is up for debate.

      • Brendar says:

        (to clarify my above post, those were two separate occasions where I was served, not one event)

    • Dutch says:

      And an event organizer who was admittedly humiliated by what transpired is not exactly an authoritative or objective source of what Sudekis knew or wanted to have happen. Emotional transference much?

  4. Merricat says:

    I am so disappointed in him if that’s the case. On the other hand, I’m super impressed with the smooth way she carried on. Eff him if he tried to ruin a big moment for her.

    • Jan90067 says:

      Frankly, I’m surprised as all hell that she actually opened the envelop then and there! Yes, we’ve heard that people were all invited, with credentials, but as we’ve seen, SOMEONE W/OUT credentials got in. HOW she did it (well…I have my ideas of how she obtained them), but with all the crazies in the world, you never know what could spill out of it. I’d’ve motioned for a PA offstage to take it and just kept going. Shoot, I’d want to take it to a hospital to be x-rayed and opened there!

      • BeanieBean says:

        That’s exactly where my brain went & commented as such on the previous post. No way would I open an envelope handed to me by a rando stranger, particularly while I was on a stage; not even sure I would take it in my hands.

  5. Rapunzel says:

    So as I said yesterday, years ago, I got served the same papers for a lawsuit 3 times. I had received the papers by registered mail and by hand at home from a Process server. I signed for them twice so I was definitely not avoiding being served. But a process server still came to my place of work and interrupted the class I was teaching to serve me the papers a third time.

    I shudder to think at all the judgey folks from yesterday’s thread that would say I must have been avoiding service. I was 100% not. And I was/am still convinced that the instigator of the suit arranged for that service at my job (it was an estranged cousin). I was the only one of the 6 people served that got served more than once, and the only one who got served at work.

    It would not surprise me if Jason arranged the whole thing thinking that everyone would assume Olivia was avoiding service. . . which everyone ridiculously did yesterday, going by the prior thread.

    • Jess says:

      Agree, Rapunzel. I feel a bit vindicated because I pushed back in the comments yesterday on everyone who was so sure they knew what had happened and that Olivia had brought this on herself. As I said then, it smacked of victim blaming because there was literally no reason to believe -even with what we knew yesterday-that this was on Olivia. It’s amazing how much our biases in favor of white men continue to show up, even within the confines of this relatively “woke” gossip blog.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        Yep. Women are still utter crap even in our own minds. The number of women cheerleading for Elon right now is so pathetic it makes me embarrassed for them.

      • Tiffany:) says:

        It was really troubling to me how many comments were a variation of, “Well she must have done SOMETHING wrong to bring this upon herself!”

        The Megan Thee Stallion story really brought me down at the beginning of the week, because so many women attack/doubt her and use the same excuse. I’m just so TIRED of the idea that it must be the woman’s fault if something bad happens. I’m so tired of seeing women being bullied this way in public opinion.

    • Kitten says:

      Yes, and a process server on the thread from yesterday said that it’s common practice to try to serve someone in public or at their workplace because they have their guard down etc.

    • Lionel says:

      Having been inappropriately served at my workplace too, I entirely agree. In my experience, process servers and collection agency reps are of the same ilk; they get off on being inappropriately aggressive. Without additional info I don’t necessarily leap to Jason being the instigator, and I *definitely* don’t blame Olivia for simply being served.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        I was served at my workplace as well. Why my husband chose that route was perplexing. But as far as JS is concerned, I don’t know if he was involved with her being served there or not. I look at process servers in the same manner as collection agencies, the bottom of the barrel of mankind.

        This server apparently did her research as to where she could serve Olivia as she had created the credentials. As far as the agency that hosted this event, the fact that THEY failed Olivia, that’s on them. Though it was a dick move.

  6. girl_ninja says:

    Yeah, he knew . And he does not mind it getting messy. Whew.

    • It’sjustblanche says:

      They were that gross, oversharing couple back when they first got together. He always struck me as a little creepy and of course he’s angry that she traded up. I 100% think he did it on purpose.

    • Insight says:

      I told everyone yesterday. Of course he knew. I did family law at the beginning of my career- representing mostly female clients, and high-powered men pull stunts like this all the time to take their future exes down a peg bc they know society will always blame the woman. Sudeikis would have absolutely had to have been involved in this through his lawyers, at least greenlighting these tactics and, most likely, telling the process server where to find her and paving the way for this confrontation. There’s no hapless, broken-hearted man here, these are the cold, calculating, vindictive acts of a deeply humiliated man. He’s trying to win the split bc his girlfriend left him for a younger, more famous, unproblematic man and then had the audacity to date someone else. I know everyone likes his TV show, but come on guys, he’s not Ted Lasso.

      • Emma says:

        His TV show is dumb and exceptionally white. I don’t have any fan feeling for Jason (or Olivia): to me this just looks like he wanted to hurt and insult her. There is no reason he couldn’t simply have his lawyers contact hers if he cared about privacy for not just her but his own children.

        There is also no reason Jason, with all his experience of the fame game, wouldn’t instruct his lawyers to keep things private as far as possible.

        Either he’s an idiot (always possible) or he’s malicious (also always possible).

      • NorthernGirl_20 says:

        Ummm his TV show is amazing and there are many POC actors??? Have you actually watched it wow!

  7. Jan says:

    He wanted attention and he got it, maybe one of the reasons she dumped him, was because she didn’t want to take care of 3 children, and this stunt proves it.
    The kids must be having too much fun with Harry, and he want them miserable like him.

    • Mia4s says:

      Eh, a quick search of social media shows the kids have been with him in London the past few weeks with (at soccer matches and other events with he and his co-stars). “Juridiction” is the key word here everyone missed. Likely she wants to base in LA for her directing career and he wants to stay based in NYC.

      With career considerations, it’s tricky. If there’s even a hint she wants to move because of Harry? The judge will laugh in her face (rightly so).

  8. Inky says:

    To throw a cat among the pigeons…what if Olivia did it to drum up some sympathy for herself?

    To be clear – I am not saying I believe this theory or that I have read it anywhere, but, given the limited attendance, security processes, the fact that so few people knew she was going to be there, plus, that she even took the envelope, it all seems a little off.

    I have no idea how these processes work in real life, and whether Sudeikis could provide relevant details and get credentials for the person doing the serving. I suppose he could though? Makes me wonder how messy this really is behind the scenes. If he did do this though, what an absolute tool. I am sure I also read that around the time Wilde got with Styles that Sudeikis was playing the field and pushed the whole cheating narrative to get sympathy for himself.

    What a mess! Love it.

    • outoftheshadows says:

      Honestly, I’m wondering how it got out that she was served custody papers. If it were me, and I got something onstage, I’d nod and smile and never tell anyone what was in that envelope. As it was for her eyes only…

      Unless the person who delivered it shouted “YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED YOUR CUSTODY PAPERS NOW MA’AM”

      Either way, this is sad for those kids. I don’t know either of the adults involved but this is never fun for children once it goes to court.

      • tealily says:

        Good point. Although I could imagine releasing that info if I was super pissed about the manner that I was served the papers, just to be petty.

    • halfpint says:

      Yeah, I am also wondering how people know what was in that envelope. And everybody sure is talking about the movie now. But I don’t know. OW sure is messy — associations with Weinstein and her support of the Red Hot Chili Peppers – but there is always two sides. It could be JK’s doing or not — I haven’t heard much about him, but he could be just as messy as OW.

      The only thing that is absolute in my mind is what you said — this is sad for the kids. I really hope that they are loved immensely and well-looked after because they (and all children) deserve no less.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      How would she have made his process server serve her at this event?

      Are you suggesting this was staged by her and therefore fake? Why would Jason have claimed he didn’t know his servers would serve her there if it’s not real.

      I’m no OW fan, but for gods sake people, making her out to be a manipulative villain just to deny what he already admitted (that he had her served) is a bit much.

    • Leigh says:

      I find it odd that she held onto the envelope (is the part where it’s marked personal and confidential facing out?) in her hands throughout her presentation. It would have been so easy to hand them off to someone back stage. Or even set them on the floor.

      • Merricat says:

        Why is that odd? If something is marked “personal and confidential,” I’m definitely keeping it in my hands, thanks.

      • Christine says:

        You have got to be kidding me, Leigh.

        Let’s pretend you have been handed something that you didn’t expect.

        Nope, let’s not. You lost me the moment where you are fascinated in how she held the envelope.

    • Tan says:

      She also found a knife and stabbed her self with it too – u know like a lifetime movie 🤨

      • Christine says:

        Fucking hell. If you have a vagina, and you are reading the comments, do better.

        ETA: Word, Tan. We are in a young adult fantasy of how real life works, at this point.

  9. ThatsNotOkay says:

    I’m guessing a PI learned she was in Vegas, put two and two together, and bribed someone for info. Also probably sponsored a real industry pro to go and do this. Sudeikis could have been in the dark about it, because if anyone in the US has ever served someone, you know you have no idea when and how it will happen. All you can do is tell people addresses of where people live and work, and any other schedules of theirs (gyms, school drop offs, etc.). So even if on the off chance he told them she’d be at this event, I doubt he was involved in them setting up this kind of sting to serve her on stage. At most, any logical human being would expect them to serve her outside the venue. Anyway, Sudeikis has some Louis CK-type exposure coming his way. (Pun intended…)

    • Jess says:

      Wow, you’re really reaching for ways to defend the guy. Why would a process server or Jason have a PI involved? That’s creepy on its own. Again, as I said yesterday, most process servers try a few times G home and then give up. Jason and/or his lawyers would have to hire a unique process server company who would go to these lengths and given that they co-parent, there is no way is was necessary to do something like this. Jason and/or his lawyers wanted this.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        Am I? Or am I being logical, measured, and am I just guessing how things could have gone down? I’m pretty sure I didn’t say I knew what happened, and I didn’t get out my pitchfork to impale anyone since I have no way of knowing what the truth is, only personal experience. I don’t feel like getting pulled into a rage and rail session, and I’m happy to disagree with your suggestion that I have to assume he was well aware of what was about to happen and that he orchestrated it to be vindictive toward his ex.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      I’ve had people served and I’ve had the character to say no humiliation please. They even had a list for me to check the last time of places where I thought the person would most likely respond and I left off work events.

      When that didn’t work due to avoidance , we went back to the judge to ask for notice through mail and we got it.

      He’s not some innocent bystander ffs.

      • ThatsNotOkay says:

        And I’ve had a family member served on the first anniversary of her dad’s death, presumably just to stick it to her. I’m well aware people can be dicks. And if someone went to these great lengths to embarrass her ON STAGE, well then, they can ROT IN H*LL. My suggestion is, simply, is it possible he was not involved in planning this to that extent? “Yeah, and be sure to go to the front of the stage while she’s speaking and hand it to her so everyone can see she got them and that her reaction, which I hope will be tears, will be on video. That’ll show her for hooking up with the guy she directed and might have therefore cheated on me with. I win.” Because it seems as though the process server had called her days before and asked when they could meet. So there’s more to this story. Thus, while everyone can go ahead and sharpen her/his/their pitchforks, I’m just offering that perhaps they hold off on bringing them outside just yet. And by the by, people here attacked me once for not liking Amber Heard OR Johnny Depp and wanting them BOTH to go away. So I’m comfortable taking my time forming opinions and not jumping on bandwagons.

      • Another Anna says:

        Thank you! This is what doesn’t make sense to me. If she was being avoidant, mail service would have been a relatively easy ask of the court. If she wasn’t being avoidant, then there’s no reason to chase her down. And, regardless of whether she was avoidant or not, she was in the middle of a work event. This is like a process server busting in to your presentation to a potential client. Even if it made their job harder, the process server shouldn’t have interrupted the event.

        I’m not assigning blame to any particular party because I don’t know, but the way this story is being presented doesn’t add up. As others have said, the lawyers could have agreed to accept service. Jason’s lawyers could have tried this in public but, if she was surrounded by bodyguards, they could have handed it to a bodyguard. It simply doesn’t track that doing this onstage while she was working was the only option.

        My Civil Procedure professor told us about a case she had worked where she was suing a police officer. As you can imagine, his friends on the force helped him avoid service. My prof finally went to the court after service couldn’t be made. The other side’s lawyer argued that since the officer hadn’t been served, the lawsuit couldn’t move forward. The judge pointed out that the point of service is to give you a chance to defend yourself against a lawsuit. If your lawyer knows enough to know when to show up to court, that implies you know about the suit. The judge then asked my prof to hand the other lawyer a copy of the complaint and called it good enough. Judges don’t like avoidance of service any more than they like intentionally trying to humiliate someone during service. So if Olivia was being avoidant, there were other options besides show up at her work event. It’s one thing to show up in a public place to avoid a scene. It’s quite another to interrupt someone’s presentation. That says to me that the server is purposefully going for maximum humiliation.

        I don’t know what the truth is, but this ain’t it.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        @thatsnotok I think it’s wrong for you to suggest you are “measured and logical” (inferring any kind who disagrees isn’t) here when you’re actually making a lot of pretty wild guesses, all of which defend JS.

        None of us knows what went on, but one thing is clear, this was humiliating and it was wrong.

        Again, service by mail is an option.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        @annotheranna that’s a great point about the point of service. I’ve seen people trying to avoid service like it means they can’t get caught, like it’s a game of tag.

        Lol. As you say, judges not amused no doubt.

        This whole situation is weird, I just can’t get over that there’s not an excuse to do this to someone when there are other options.

  10. TheOriginalMia says:

    I don’t buy that no one knew she would be there. It’s not like they just threw her out there with no notice. These things have to be planned in advance, down to advertising the time and place for attendees. Say I buy the secrecy of her attendance, are we saying she would volunteer her schedule to her ex? Nah! That doesn’t make sense. Like any con, she was listed, and the process server who was an attendee, did her job and served her.

  11. mia girl says:

    I 100 percent believe someone tipped off that process server or the lawyer they work for. Maybe Sudekis knew she’d be in Vegas because she had to leave her children at home in LA (he’s in UK right?)

    Still find it weird that according to Lainey’s write up, when she was handed the envelope, Wilde says “oh, I know what this is”.

    Two things can be true, say she was ducking being served and he/his team did a sh*tty thing.

    • LightPurple says:

      Apparently, the kids are with him right now.

      • mia girl says:

        hey @lightpurple! thanks for clarifying. If their children are with him in the U.K. then not sure if he had to know where Wilde was.

        Anyway, the whole thing is crazy. And turns out there are other celebrities who’ve been served publicly! Twitter folks posted video of Tyga being served at his sneaker release event and Ciara getting served while performing at her own concert!

    • michyk says:

      @mia or she could have said that to cover any embarrassment at not knowing what exactly is happening? i might do that if surprised. like, oh, thank you, i was expecting these. something like that to cover not knowing?

      • mia girl says:

        @michyk – Yeah, I could see that as a possibility.

        Regardless, dodging or not, she handled the moment like a pro. She didn’t miss a beat. Good for her.

        And as I mentioned in yesterday’s post, I loved her suit!

    • K.T says:

      According to Glamour mag: “The actor and director remarked on the “very mysterious” envelope, adding that she was “going to open it now because it feels like it’s a script,” according to People. After opening it, she replied, “Okay, got it. Thank you.”

  12. tolly says:

    This point was made in the previous post, but it bears repeating: lawyers and process servers are just trying to do their jobs as efficiently and safely as possible. They are not loyal henchmen who are out to get their client’s opponent. If Sudeikis had been purple with rage about his ex’s cute new boyfriend and demanded that she be humiliated in public, his lawyers would have ignored him and the process server would never have been told.

    • BlueSky says:

      I agree with this. As I said yesterday the process server who served me papers called and asked if I could meet her away from my job because she didn’t like serving people at work.

      Custody issues are messy no matter what. You have two people who don’t have 9-5 jobs that require travel. Who knows what’s been going on between them. Maybe he got frustrated with not being able to serve her papers and this was the last resort? Who knows? Either way, I’m sure she’s fine.

    • T3PO says:

      This. Also security is often an illusion to events like this. Watch those YouTube guys who get in anywhere with a yellow vest and confidence. I’m not surprised the event is trying to cover their asses, but I’m sure their protocol is an hourly worker, a piece of paper, and a highlighter.

    • khaveman says:

      I’m thinking these servers just want to serve, get it done, and move on to the next one. And I don’t think JS has time to worry about this stuff due to his show etc. She was probably avoiding it and hard to pin down.

      • Trina says:

        Oh, scorned men ALWAYS got time to worry (obsess), trust.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        What? You’re vouching for his state of mind right now and blaming her for being avoidant, so you know her motives and this justifies what happened but he can’t be blamed because you know he’s too busy in his show to think about the huge legal case involving his children?

        Good lord, it’s like mens rights activists have taken over.

      • Lady D says:

        Thanks, @WtA.

    • Brendar says:

      “They are not loyal henchmen who are out to get their client’s opponent.”

      I am now picturing process servers lurking and plotting with lawyers while dressed like Alan Rickman and Michael Wincott in Robin Hood.

    • NorthernGirl_20 says:

      Exactly well said – the lawyers would never had allowed him to do something like this. 100% not on him.

    • Nic919 says:

      There is a lot of transference of people who had bad divorces in this thread because not all lawyers are evil nor are all process servers. Besides an asshole move by a process server will get mentioned in the next motion record before a judge in an ongoing custody case, so usually the drama doesn’t help anyone.

      The rep from this conference is pretty biased and basically is looking to save face so nothing said there is credible.

      Most lawyers aren’t going to do a play by play about how someone is served to their client because often the lawyers don’t know either. Usually it’s the name of the person, what they look like and the address you can expect to find them.

      The larger question would be why these papers could not be sent lawyer to lawyer to avoid all this.

  13. K.T says:

    From Newsweek: “In addition, to attend, one must be either a member in good standing of one of three movie industry professional organizations, be an industry affiliate—like members of the media, advertisers or publicity companies—or, finally, be eligible for membership in either of the three professional organizations but without an active membership.”

    These hundreds of cinema distributors/industry types were shown this as she was on stage promoting her movie to them! It set of a flurry of industry gossip about if it was a serving or if it was a ‘bit’.
    That’s weeks of planning for maximum shaming…maybe a ‘scorched earth’ legal strategy. Scary!

    • Christine says:

      I agree, this got so much worse. I had no idea CinemaCon was so different from other conventions, but this is next level creepy.

    • Tiffany:) says:

      Yes, this event is for actual movie theater owners/distributors! It really is a TERRIBLE thing to do for her film, because she was showcasing the trailer to help get her movie out there when it is released. Number of theaters can have big impact. The serving of documents really peed on her parade. The trailer seemed to get a lot of positive attention before it was realized that she was served papers.

  14. Eurydice says:

    I don’t know. If anybody over the age of 18 can serve papers, then why couldn’t it be that this woman was legitimately registered for the event? As for invitations, I went on the CinemaCon website and there were multiple ways to register – if you’re a member of various industry organizations, if you’re not a member but part of the film industry, and if you’re not a member and not in the industry. I couldn’t get any further because the event is over, but this didn’t look like some kind of top-secret event.

    And I don’t really believe that Olivia WIlde’s presence was such a top secret, either. That whole business leaks like a sieve.

    • greenleaf22 says:

      You’d think someone legit in the industry wouldn’t want to risk their reputation and potential invites to other events by pulling this stunt.

      • Eurydice says:

        But they don’t have to be legit in the industry, just legitimately registered for the event. From what I saw, non-industry people were allowed to attend.

    • Nic919 says:

      Unless they are doing police checks at a high level, as long as the woman had ID confirming her name, I don’t see how they could stop her from coming in. There is no “people who only work in movies” database for them to search.

  15. Pork Chops and Applesauce says:

    I’m not sure why he would have been privy to the specifics of her appearance there. Perhaps as it relates to child care but only in general terms, not her exact schedule there.

  16. Trina says:

    Listen, no one’s real life experience is relevant here, because you are all talking about average people, and average law firms. This is so different as to be on another planet. Keep coming up with reasons why Ted Lass…opps, I mean Jason Sudeikis, is an innocent lamb in all of this, and was shocked to find out there was gambling going on! I will stay laughing because I knew immediately he had exposed himself. IMO he exposed himself early on in this, but Ted Lasso and all that, nobody wanted to look.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      Well. People are still so confused, it had to be her fault, the sweet Ted L… and of course he had nothing to do— I mean sure he’s mad at her, but then he has a right to be so it’d be understandable of he humiliated her (you don’t hear this in reverse) but of course he didn’t because process servers are so professional that never happens.

      as you can see from this comment section, no one would ever stretch to help Jason out and humiliate OW, so therefore someone he is paying through his lawyers would never -gasp- do what they just did for the purpose of defending this poor cheated man. I mean sure maybe they both cheated, but it only counts when it happens to a man.

      • SaraTor says:

        And if you were a small, petty man bent on revenge, the circumstances are ripe. Here is your ex, celebrating her directorial debut, the pinnacle of her career, in which she directed her hot rockstar boyfriend. She’s at a professional event promoting her work… What better place to take her down a peg or too, perhaps threaten her access to the kids? It’s a motive, for sure. Is it what happened? I don’t know, but we shouldn’t rule it out just like that.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        @saraTor exactly and not only is she at an event celebrating pinnacle of her career, but she has broken into the boys club of directing. She has some power other than as a sex object.

        Omg. Yes, humiliate her with custody service reminding everyone that she is a WOMAN who has children (and should probably be home with them but isn’t, according to most of the country). I mean, most of Hollywood doesn’t believe in women directors so one well placed arrow like this is certainly harmful.

        And then he claims he had no idea this would happen. As she is at event celebrating film she worked on with man he said she cheated on him with. (I believe this is the story but admittedly I don’t follow her career or his, liked Ted Lasso but that’s over)

        I can now see why this country voted for Donald trump over the most qualified candidate in modern history, who just so happened to be a woman.

      • Kate says:

        Only noting that this isn’t her directorial debut – that was Booksmart.

    • ANON says:

      @Trina, Thank you for keeping us accountable in these comments! It’s disgusting seeing people DARVO a man publicly treating his ex-partner this way. This story’s pretty simple, and Jason Sudeikis’ actions are garbage.

    • AlpineWitch says:

      So true, Trina. What I’m shocked about is so many are defending him without him having said a peep – he said it was inappropriate but what if he sanctioned the whole thing, except the stage part?

      No way that process server could get credentials without someone in the industry arranging for them (I’d bet JS or his team).

  17. MY3CENTS says:

    Sudeikis is giving off major Small Dick Energy, well done.

  18. Chelsea says:

    As I said yesterday, I don’t buy the idea that she was dodging being served and was hard to find when everyone knew she was at Coachella the last two weekends as she posted on ig about it and was photographed there multiple times not just at concerts but at restaurants too.

    So are you telling me they couldn’t find her at Coachella even though everyone knew she was there and multiple fans spotted her there but they were somehow able to get credentialed into CinemaCom where very few people knew she would be? Something stinks here. I was trying to give Jason the benefit of the doubt too here yesterday but considering that they spent one of their kids birthday together last week he might’ve known she’d be at Cinemacon.

    • K.T says:

      Maybe she was dodging a process server. But, like I said upthread i was so fascinated by the drama of it all I read lots of articles.
      A hundred+ attendees that had to buy tickets and then get accredited. So these people were really industry types that love and know how to gossip. Articles quoted people immediately talking about it at the after-events! And then going to talk to media outlets about the envelope server interruption. I think there were lots of ways to make it less public but not that many more ways to make it so infamous!

  19. Wilma says:

    Maybe the server likes high stakes serving?

    • K.T says:

      I’d def pay to see a dark edgy movie of this server’s life if she’s gone rogue! She could like plan these high drama servings. Divorce papers to an NFL football coach in the middle of a big game. Embezzlement papers to a banker’s retirement yacht party. Lol

  20. bitsycs says:

    The main thing I assume is that he has competent legal representation (not that he’s a good person or his character) and IF this was planned for petty and shaming, it will come out. His attorneys will be asked by the judge about this and they’ll have to explain why they went this route. And if they did it for shame/petty reasons, it will hurt him in court with the judge.

    • Cava 24 says:

      For sure, and it should hurt him in court if he did that, there’s a process you go through before you serve someone. In general, lawyers avoid doing dumb bush league things because judges don’t like it and lawyers have to deal with the same judges over and over and don’t want the judge to view them negatively.

  21. Watson says:

    Jason’s looking like a massive loser in this story. No wonder she left his ass.

  22. michyk says:

    i’ve only read about this story here, so maybe someone with a bit more knowledge can answer: how was it discovered/revealed that she was actually served papers? if i saw someone being handed an envelope, i dont know if i would automatically assume that. especially since she seems to have carried it off pretty smoothly. did she release a statement after? i’ve seen some comments that there was a lot of gossip after, but did her team confirm it? or was it all acknowledged by that statement from sudeikis’ lawyer? because if it’s his team that confirmed what happened, to me, that’s another mark in favor of him knowing about all of this and/or orchestrating it.

    • Goldie says:

      I believe the industry website Deadline first reported that Olivia was served with custody papers. Then, Jason’s team released a statement saying that he had no prior knowledge of it.

  23. AmelieOriginal says:

    Oh, the plot thickens! So Jason must have known she was going to this ahead of time? Either she had custody of the kids when this happened or he did. I’m guessing they must communicate their plans ahead of time so each knows where the kids are at all times. The truth will come out eventually, they’ll be able to identify the woman and the process serving company and get to the bottom of how this happened.

  24. Kelly says:

    I am from the school of “who would be motivated to hurt somebody in this way” and the answer will always be the ex. Also, if he didn’t know she was seeing Styles, maybe she needed to send a message to him holding Harry’s hand at the wedding publicly because of personal issues such as abuse and manipulation. Maybe she never married him because of these intense issues. Smartless Podcast has Tina Fey telling stories of Sudeikis, and he sounded insecure personality wise. If Olivia played it cool, she’s a pro and I feel that this will only help her when this case gets messier. We see you, Jason. Nice try.

  25. swedish chef says:

    People were saying yesterday that they go to great lengths to serve if someone was really hard to track down. If Olivia was a man and ducking being served, no one would have a problem with this.

    • Cava 24 says:

      100% – if Jason was avoiding acknowledging her legal action for the same thing and she did had him served, people would be like “she did what she had to do, good for her”. Lots of aspects of how people talk about her relationship with Harry have some misogyny- their relative ages, the fact that she’s a mom, the fact that sometimes she’s not with her kids (she has shared custody) but this is not one of them.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      But others of us pointed out that there are other options when someone is avoiding service. A lawyer mentioned this and I mentioned it from personal experience. Humiliation at a career event is not the only solution.

      Where are these posts of woman cheering when a woman did this to a man? Are are you just assuming that because it helps make an argument that people are unfair to Jason?

    • ANON says:

      I get what you’re saying, however, this is false. When a man is held accountable by a woman, a vocal subset will condemn her for “threatening his livelihood.” If I woman did this, she would be getting death threats.

      What J Sudeikis did is worse, because it’s a man trying to humiliate his ex-partner publicly. Women directors have a much steeper hill to climb, and this threatened her career. This was not necessary.

    • Tiffany:) says:

      What’s problematic are accusations that she was “ducking” being served, or purposely avoiding being served, etc. There is NO PROOF that she did anything “wrong” that would justify such an interruption to her professional work. Perhaps she is hard to serve because of travel, etc., but that isn’t a character flaw and it isn’t devious.

      It’s problematic when people automatically attack a woman when there is no proof that she did something wrong. The default option shouldn’t be “it’s the woman’s fault this went bad.”

  26. Tiffany :) says:

    The truly sad thing is that the 1st narrative from her presentation was how sexy her trailer was. You know, her work got the headline. Now it’s about the guy she used to be with.


  27. Cava 24 says:

    If she had other means to accept notice of his legal action either by signing a waiver of service of process or by designating her lawyer as her agent in the matter, which it is likely she did, she could have avoided being served at all, anywhere. According to Lainey she said “I know what this is” when she opened it. Given that both she and Jason were trying to establish where the family is based via their interviews last year and they did not agree, this has probably been ongoing for some time. Not responding to someone’s lawsuit is a way of “controlling” them. Do I think she’s evil? No, I think she pushed it as far as she could and his team figured they had to get their legal action started before she came back to London. Is it classy of him to do it? No. Is it classy of her to basically say, “I am not signing anything, you will have to find another way”, also no. (Note that her team still hasn’t indicated that they were unaware of this legal action, if he actually blindsided her with something that hadn’t been discussed before, you can bet she would get that out there, she’s not shy and her team comments on other things all the time). There’s an article on People that talks about how process servers work and why people get served in public if people are interested.

    • Trina says:

      Lainey is the only one saying that. All other outlets state she actually said “The actor and director remarked on the “very mysterious” envelope, adding that she was “going to open it now because it feels like it’s a script,” according to People. After opening it, she replied, “Okay, got it. Thank you.” K.T. pointed this out above but perhaps you missed that. I took special note of your screenname so I remember whose opinions on anything involving women are irrelevant.

    • tolly says:

      I agree. Both sides already have lawyers who have presumably been contact with each other, so this was not a matter of tracking down an individual with a new legal action. I would be really surprised if this was the first attempt to get those papers to her.

  28. Bex says:

    Well, she has to be the victim of the mean man who people seem to believe regular people can’t tell isn’t a TV character. 😒

  29. Abby says:

    This was my take when I first heard this story. He did this to humiliate her. Which instantly gave me an ick feeling because I love Ted Lasso like its my baby and I hate to think of him being so petty.

    The only *other* conclusion I could come to would be somehow she orchestrated it to make HIM look petty. But I have no idea how that would work. So, I still think he set this up.

  30. Nuks says:

    One one hand, I still feel like anyone clever enough to serve this way is also clever enough to realize how professionally damaging it is to the celebrity client (JS). Only red hats and MRAs would think this was a moment to cheer. Only JS could be blind to how it could blow back on his female fans (working women, moms, women who have dealt with crappy ex’s trying to extract pain for daring to leave relationships).

    But I also think it could be that his team messed up – maybe one of them had an easy in to the event. But JS did not come out with a strong enough statement AND APOLOGY that satisfies me, so f him. He needs to apologize to his female audience for this insult. An actress makes the very difficult transition to director (because Hollywood throws away aging actresses) and he tries to insult and diminish her as she’s making a critical presentation? F him.

    • Kork says:

      Can’t say I really care much either way.
      Maybe he’s not very nice, maybe she isn’t but what I will say is this..

      If HE was the one who left the marriage and took up with a much younger female pop star and SHE had papers served to him publicly, you’d all be treating this very differently.
      Double standards. Everywhere.

      • NorthernGirl_20 says:

        100% I’m surprised at the comments vilifying JS, there is definite overlap with OW getting together with HS. If the roles had been reversed this would be treated much differently here.

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        This is getting tiresome. Quite a straw man, as no one has been able to point out where this has occurred.

        historically, any woman standing up for herself being the wronged party while interfering with a huge career moment in a man’s life is vilified and raked over the coals for harming his livelihood. The males “reputation” and ability to thrive in his career are seen as inalienable rights.

        At any rate nothing you’re saying makes this okay. Whataboutism is weak sauce to justify something that can’t be easily justified because it’s crappy.

        This was crappy.

      • L says:

        Oh. You DEFINITELY care. 😏

      • Otaku fairy says:

        Nope, unless the male celebrity had a history of seriously problematic, messy, or violent behavior. In most other situations, a celebrity ex-wife would not be given the benefit of the doubt, would be made out to be a thirsty vindictive diva, and would probably be getting diagnosed with every mental health issue in the book. Especially if people already disapproved of her physical appearance and sexuality in any way.

  31. Lala11_7 says:

    The s— started falling apart when “Booksmart” became an unexpected hit & critical success…And if folks think Jason didn’t help orchestrate this mess while she was celebrating her NEXT big success when it’s been in the wind that Jason had a “problem” with her success…I see how POS Trump became POTUS cause the delusion is real…

    Folks focusing on Olivia supposedly cheating is funny to me too…cause THAT is how you end a relationship with a raging controlling narcissist that works your last f—ing nerve…because THAT is the ONLY thing they understand…LIFE has taught me that…I CELEBRATE when folks find happiness…HOWEVA they find it….I don’t believe in allegiances to social constructs when it comes to dealing with romance & grown-ups…as long as the CHILDREN are safe in those situations…you grown…you do you and GO FOR YOURS .. life is too short and WAY TOO MANY of these men ain’t s—anyway…


  32. Adrian says:

    OK, if he knew about this then that was very mean. I was hoping he has moved on bc his career is doing great. But if this is true, very mean. He’d be like his character in Collosal than Ted Lasso. In the movie, he seemed like a caring childhood friend of Anne Hathaway but was revealed to be a manipulative jealous sociopath. I hope there’s truly some misunderstanding. I’m not quick to judge because this is showbiz after all.

  33. ClaireB says:

    I don’t see why everyone is acting like one of these people has to be 100% wrong.
    It’s entirely possible that OW has been avoiding being served, the process server resorted to a method that was embarrassing for her, and JS had nothing to do with the method.

    He can still be a cheating dog while trying to get papers to his ex. She can still be a person with a questionable history in ending and torching relationships who got something a little embarrassing while at work.

    And I have to ask, if she honestly thought it was a script someone was trying to get her to read, why did she open it on stage while she was supposed to be talking about her current work? Surely anyone enthusiastic enough to try to get a script to her that way would include their contact information inside and she would check it out later. If there’s a reasonable explanation for why she opened it right then instead of saying thanks and moving on, someone please tell me. I didn’t think the theory that she had it served to herself in public to shame JS was plausible, but I seem to have talked myself into it.

  34. Eggbert says:

    So much dramaaaaaaah!

  35. NCWoman says:

    Am I missing something? Because Jason wasn’t talking until the story of the custody papers came out, his lawyers weren’t talking, and no one knows who the process server is, so she wasn’t talking. That means that the Only reason that we know that Olivia was “humiliated” is that she decided to tell someone it was custody papers, who then told the media. If she’d stuck to the original story that it was a script, absolutely no one would have known it was custody papers. If you want to humiliate someone, you don’t depend on them to broadcast their humiliation to the world–you do the broadcasting.

    • Tiffany:) says:

      The papers were definitely an intrusion and pulled focus from her presentation long before people knew what they were.

      The Hollywood Reporter put up an article titled “Olivia Wilde’s ‘Don’t Worry Darling’ CinemaCon Presentation Interrupted by Delivery of Mystery Envelope” at 10:30 in the morning, and then updated the article at 5:30 pm, saying that it was custody papers.

      So yeah, it was news before Olivia even left the stage. THR wrote that they reached out to her reps and the studio trying to find out what the papers were (they cite Deadline for the answer, though).

      • WiththeAmerican says:

        No Tiffany, see it’s her fault for speaking about what was done to her. If she’d just been silent like a good girl, none of this would have happened. I mean sure the press already knew cuz it was…an industry event. But somehow this is her fault.

      • Tiffany:) says:

        Very well played, WiththeAmerican.

  36. Mary-Jo says:

    The papers could have been served BEFORE she entered or when she LEFT the stage, obviously. So the idea was to embarrass her. And I doubt the process server was personally invested in the matter, so someone told him do act in this way.

    • ExpatInTheUK says:

      Did she mingle with the crowds at all? If she was backstage before the event, there will be additional security at those entry points – they won’t just be letting anyone from the audience walk in.
      The process server likely took the first chance that opened up – I.e. as soon as she was on stage. Why wait until after when you’re not certain if you have another window of opportunity?

  37. Julia K says:

    There is enough mutual humiliation to go around here and mutual responsibility for a failed relationship. Neither one of these people are angels. I sincerely hope their children come first and they can behave appropriately going forward as responsible adults who respect each other as parents.

  38. AC says:

    I feel like Jason did have something to do with it, especially since you can’t by tickets. The thing is, it backfired and looked bad for him so what do men in Hollywood do? Deny!

  39. AJ says:

    FWIW (from a divorce attorney working in this area for 17 years) I always let my clients determine how service will occur, and it is never a surprise to them how it will occur, because my goal, especially when there are children, is to preserve and promote respectful relations between the parties. Service by ambush does not promote such respect.

    • WiththeAmerican says:

      This was my experience with my lawyers as well. Pretty weird how everyone is acting like he would have no clue.

  40. Jennifer says:

    I dunno…I find it hard to get worked up over this one? Like on the 2020’s Scandal Scale it’s like a 2? I don’t particularly mean to defend Jason but it doesn’t seem that likely that he had control over what the lawyer/process server did, and it sounds like she handled it well in the moment. I don’t know enough to know if she was avoiding being served ahead of time to require these lengths, it’s just odd anyway.

  41. HME says:

    WOW. Lots and lots of projection happening here. Meanwhile we don’t actually know anything more than we did yesterday. Mr anonymous CinemaCon official saying JS wanted to “humiliate her” isn’t a statement of fact. That dude likely doesn’t know anything more than any of us about what lead to OW being served on stage like that.

    Is it possible JS masterminded the whole thing just to humiliate OW? Yes. Is it possible he didn’t know that she was going to be ambushed on stage? Yes. Is it possible OW has been dodging the papers? Yes. Is it possible she hasn’t? Yes. The bottom line is we don’t know anything for sure other than the fact she was served while on stage.

    • DianaB says:

      This! OMG, we don’t know anything and the wild projection on both sides of the discussion is getting really nutty.

      • OG Bella says:

        That’s my stance exactly.

        We don’t know enough and so many factors could have gone in either direction.

        I’ll reserve judgement until I find out more.

  42. ExpatInTheUK says:

    I don’t think we should attribute bad intent to either side until we get more information.

    Logically, if I were the process server, I would have likely chose a very similar tactic to get my job done efficiently. A famous person who has been out of the country for a while, travels around even when they are in the US, and almost always surrounded by security will be very difficult to serve in person. I would need a precise time and location to get the delivery done successfully. I’m not going to waste my time trying to locate a person in a massive venue with large crowds and surrounded by security. Or just hanging out in some spots hoping they will show up. It will take some work to get access to this event but I’m almost guaranteed a window of opportunity to serve the papers in person.

    Would I spare a thought about whether a rich and famous person may potentially get embarrassed? Er, if I have to go through all this hassle, no, I don’t think I would dwell on it that much. I have bills to pay! Let me just do my job.

  43. Colleen says:

    I’m a paralegal (I was in family law until January) who has had to have papers served on parties. Our clients were not wealthy, just ordinary folk, but there were a few occasions where we had to end up hiring a PI to track someone down in the following situations: If someone was hard to track down, wouldn’t let their attorney accept service (in my experience that was because they were avoiding being served), or wouldn’t give their current address or employment out to the other party.

    That said, it’s kinda crazy to me how many of the comments on this thread are so black and white – it’s either Olivia’s fault or Jason’s fault. We really don’t know what went on behind the scenes. For all we know, the process server is a drama queen looking for their 15 minutes. Not everything has to be a “thing” faulting one person of the other.

    • Wilma says:

      I’m definitely going with rogue server looking for their next story to tell at parties.

  44. Honeychurch says:

    According to TMZ, the custody papers were filed in October. And OW was papped daily in LA at that tine, leaving the gym and going for brunches with friends. Maybe the server should have waited outside the gym with the paps.

    When I read that, I was like .. okay, serving someone on stage during their big career moment? That smells like someone’s deliberately trying to insert themselves into someone else’s big career moment & make it all about themselves.

    Then I had the thought to look through JS’s dating history (because NOW I was getting curious) and what do I find? A pattern of him having huge problems whenever a girlfriend/partner becomes successful.

    I don’t think this whole story is over.

  45. Sunnyville says:

    It looks like that as they said his lawyers knew she’d be served like she was! Honestly it’s so petty and makes him look bitter

  46. Likeyoucare says:

    At least the good news is olivia has recorded evidence that he abused her mentally for the custody battle.

    • Meh says:

      What? No. Stop throwing around mental abuse like it applies to everything.

      • Caseysmom says:

        Everyone has gotten super overly emotionally invested in this. We don’t even know how much we don’t know. She was served some documents on stage. We don’t know why they were served on stage…everyone is simply making assumptions. She carried on like the pro she is. Maybe Sudekis arranged it, maybe he didn’t. Maybe security was lax, maybe it wasn’t. There are going to be at least four sides to this story: Olivia’s, Jason’s, Cinema Con’s, the lawyers’…and the fifth, the truth.

  47. MsGnomer says:

    Idk about you, but this feels like a publicity stunt? It’s a big, mean stunt that gets her in the news cycle as Harry is about to release a new album? The old adage that any publicity is good publicity comes to mind. I don’t know much about Jason S. – he and his performances have always seemed low key to me. This stunt is a way to keep us talking about her. Isnt this the way news cycles are created?