“The Conjuring” sequel may not happen at all. The follow-up to the box office success horror flick was targeted for Oct 23, 2015 release, but a new lawsuit is threatening to put a stop to it.

The 2013 supernatural thriller took over USD318 million at the box office, making it one of the most profitable films of the year. With such success, a sequel was almost guaranteed.

But Warner Bros may not be able to distribute it now after it was slapped with a lawsuit, preventing the release of the planned film.

Producer Tony DeRosa-Grund and his Evergreen Media company filed breach of contract against the distributor Warner Bros and New Line Cinema, which released the film.

Evergreen Media argues that it owns film rights based on the life and casebook of Ed and Lorraine Warren. It licensed a movie version to New Line, while making another deal with Lionsgate for a “Conjuring” TV series.

It is now seeking to reap “all of the profits” from the film, claiming that New Line acted in bad faith and breached their agreements by failing to pay for the rights and stealing those rights to make additional films.

According to the lawsuit, a copy of which has been obtained by Deadline, apart from the sequel, New Line has developed, produced, and completed production of “Annabelle,” which is based on a different Case File of the Warrens and not related to “The Conjuring.”

Evergreen Media is concerned that the defendants intend either to release “Annabelle” in the big screen without properly compensating Evergreen Media and without properly crediting DeRosa-Grund, or releasing the film as a direct-to-video production, which the plaintiffs have no right to do so.

New Line has also said to have refused to pay the plaintiffs for the rights to produce any sequel of “The Conjuring.”

A spokesperson from Warner Bros told The Hollywood Reporter that the lawsuit filing is improper since their agreement was signed in Los Angeles.

The rep said, “New Line has been and is vigorously defending itself against these spurious claims in a binding arbitration proceeding in Los Angeles, and therefore the Texas filing is both procedurally and substantively improper.”