Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV23908, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling


            All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the  matter off calendar.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV23908    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

HOLE IN ONE PRODUCTION (YELLOW BIRDS), LLC, 

 

         vs.

 

MARK CANTON, et al.

 Case No.:  19STCV23908

 

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  April 9, 2024

 

Plaintiff Hole in One Productions (Yellow Birds), LLC’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement against Defendants is denied without prejudice. 

 

          Plaintiff Hole in One Productions (Yellow Birds), LLC (“HIOP”) (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order enforcing the settlement agreement against Defendants.  (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §664.6.)

 

          Background

          On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendants Mark Canton (“Canton”), Courtney Solomon (“Solomon”), YB Productions LLC (“YB”), Cinelou Films, LLC (“Cinelou”), and Mad Riot Entertainment, LLC (“Mad Riot”)[1] (collectively, “Defendants”).  On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant alleging six causes of action: (1) breach of agreement; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) fraud-intentional misrepresentation; (5) violation of Corporations Code §§25400, 25401; and (6) violation of Corporations Code §§25504, et seq.

On or about April 29, 2021, Defendants filed Notice of Settlement of an unconditional settlement.  (4/29/21 Notice of Settlement.)  On or about May 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement of a conditional settlement.  (5/13/21 Notice of Settlement.)  On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration attaching a fully executed Settlement Agreement between the parties, which was executed on November 12, 2021.  (Decl. of Rosenthal ¶3, Exh. A.)  On November 19, 2021, this Court, pursuant to an oral request made by Plaintiff, ordered this matter dismissed without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6.  (11/19/21 Minute Order.)

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants were to “offer two acting roles (each a “Role” and collectively “Roles”) which meet the requirements of subsection c.v.” to Renee Willett, Plaintiff’s designee, which required that the Roles have a proper noun name (i.e. “Jill” or “Samantha”, not “waitress” or “receptionist”) and each Role had to have at least ten (10) lines of dialogue with Willet’s Role being readily identifiable.  (Decl. of Willett ¶¶2-4, Exh. A at §§2.c.ii, 2.c.v.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 15, 2024.  Defendants Solomon and Cinelou filed an opposition on March 26, 2024.  Defendant Canton filed his joinder to the opposition on March 26, 2024.  Plaintiff filed its reply on April 2, 2024.

Defendants Solomon and Cinelou oppose consideration of the motion as untimely under C.C.P. §1005(b) on the grounds that the instant motion was served on them on March 15, 2024, by mail and email, which required an additional two days added to the requisite service and filing of the moving papers period of 16 court days.  (C.C.P. §1005(b).)  For appropriate service by email, Plaintiff’s moving papers should have been filed by March 13, 2024.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion was untimely served and is therefore denied.

 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is denied without prejudice. 

Moving Party to give notice.

 

 

Dated:  April _____, 2024

                                                                            

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 


[1] Mad Riot was dismissed from this matter on November 15, 2021.