Sheen v. Lorre Docket No. Sc

111794 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On May 17, 2020, P entered into a written letter of agreement with Ds for the acting services of P with respect to a show called Two and a Half Men. P was to be paid per episode with a minimum guarantee of 23 episodes per season. D also entered into an agreement with WB to timely write and develop scripts for each episode of the show. This Show Runner Agreement was entered expressly to the benefit of P. It is posited that the services of both P and D were required in order for the show to succeed. P was hospitalized in early February 2011. Production as briefly postponed. On February 14, 2011, P returned to the set and was informed that production would not proceed because D had not done his part to make scripts notwithstanding the fact that it was contemplated that P would return to work shortly. P was told to return on February 28, 2011, when production would resume. P claims D unilaterally breached the Show Runner Agreement and thus indirectly interfered with P’s Acting Agreement. Even with a February 28^th resumption, there was still enough time to complete 6 to 8 additional episodes. P was then told the production schedule was to be terminated early on March 25, 2011, and that only 4 additional episodes would be produced. P also claimed that D intentionally harassed P during production by making D do scenes over and over again and again solely to harass P. D also made derogatory comments about P to the public. When P defended himself, P convinced WB to terminate production of the season early and to terminate the Acting Agreement. P thought that D was doing this sabotage to get out of the commitments to Two and a Half Men because they had more profitable engagements elsewhere. Proof of this is shown by the fact that the writers for Men are all working on those other shows. P sought payment in full for the alleged breaches. P alleged that is has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required pursuant to the Acting Agreement to demand payment in full and that performance has been excused by D and WB’s conduct.