“Siesta Key” Alum Sam Logan Failed to Pay Chef for Months of Work, New Complaint Alleges
“Siesta Key” Alum Sam Logan Failed to Pay Chef for Months of Work, New Complaint Alleges
Chiara Kim, Sean MandellTue, September 29, 2026 at 9:48 PM UTC
0
Sam Logan, an alum of reality show ‘Siesta Key’, is accused of not paying his chef in a lawsuitCredit: MTV -
James Chang alleges he cooked nearly daily for Sam Logan and his roommates for about nine months
The chef is seeking more than $50,000 in alleged unpaid services and expenses he claims he was promised by Logan
The case is set for trial on Sept. 30 after mediation failed to resolve the dispute
Siesta Key alum Sam Logan is facing a lawsuit after allegedly failing to pay his chef.
James Chang, a Florida chef who claims he typically works with high-net-worth clients, is suing the former MTV show star, along with former co-star Mike Vazquez, on allegations that he failed to pay him for months, according to court documents obtained by PEOPLE.
Per a May 2, 2025 complaint, Chang met Logan and Vazquez in November 2022 and worked at Logan’s house as a private chef for two events, which he was paid for.
Chang alleged he then agreed to provide meal prep for the pair for $1,000 a week, along with cost reimbursement.
He claimed that the defendants communicated to him that the Elizabeth A. Logan Revocable Trust, of which Logan was allegedly a beneficiary, would pay him for his services.
The complaint claimed that the chef began providing meal prep for Logan and Vazquez in December 2022, before also starting to make meals for their third roommate Tyler Bartel (who is also named as a defendant), all with the understanding of payment jointly.
The complaint alleged that Logan never reimbursed Chang for his cooking costsCredit: sam_jlo/Instagram
He then worked for the clients on a nearly daily basis cooking and catering, the complaint alleged, which was “well in excess of the scope of work originally contemplated,” for the next approximately nine months until August 2023.
Chang alleged that his food was included in Siesta Key and provided to people filming at Logan’s house.
However, the complaint alleged, Chang was “never paid for his services or reimbursed for his costs.” It claimed that his expenses for his work totaled “tens of thousands of dollars.”
“It did not occur to Chang that he was being exploited, and that the Defendants had no intention to pay him,” the complaint claimed.
Chang claimed that the defendants repeatedly rescheduled or canceled meetings to discuss his payment.
He alleged that he “repeatedly sought payment for his work,” even telling Logan and Vazquez he would be evicted without enough money to pay his rent.
“Eventually, Samuel Logan told Chang that Vazquez believed Chang was harassing him,” the complaint claimed, alleging that Logan blocked Chang from communication after Chang sent a letter demanding payment.
The complaint alleged that Logan’s mother, Elizabeth A. Logan, told Chang’s friend the trust would pay Chang, but later “reneged” on her “assurances.”
Advertisement
Chang also named Elizabeth, an alleged trustee of the Elizabeth A. Logan Revocable Trust, as a defendant in the case.
Elizabeth’s husband allegedly threatened Chang’s friend, saying that if Chang pursued legal action, “he would ensure that even Chang’s grandchildren would never see a penny from them.”
The complaint claimed that Chang received around $500 from Bartel after coincidentally running into him in the summer of 2024.
Chang is seeking more than $50,000 as he accuses the defendants of breach of agreement, unjust enrichment, fraud and civil conspiracy, among other counts.
He alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation by intending to utilize their status to exploit him, making false statements about “material facts.”
He also claimed that the defendants created a conspiracy to defraud him to “serve as essentially a free private cook.”
The complaint claimed that Logan attempted to create a “false commercial impression” on reality television and social media by hosting events and marketing an image of wealth, allegedly using Chang’s “labor to enhance their brand image” without “fair compensation.”
It described the alleged conduct as “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious” to Chang and the public who consumed the alleged representations.
On April 4, 2026, the court denied Vazquez’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Per court documents, an “impasse” was reached during a mediation scheduled on Aug. 31, 2026.
Logan and Elizabeth filed a motion in limine on Sept. 1, 2026, calling certain evidence “irrelevant, speculative, or unfairly prejudicial.”
Specifically, the defendants claimed mentions of their wealth were irrelevant and potentially misleading and added that Chang must give specific amounts and dates for the alleged reimbursement costs.
The motion also claimed that the original complaint ties third parties to Logan and the trust without establishing an official connection.
The case goes to trial on Wednesday, Sept. 30.
on People
Source: “AOL Entertainment”
