Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 19STCV23908, Date: 2025-03-12 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. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. 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.

Plaintiff Hole in One Productions (Yellow Birds), LLC’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement against Defendants Mark Canton, Courtney Solomon, and Cinelou Films, LLC is granted.

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

On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). (Decl. of Willett ¶2, Exh. A.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November 14, 2024. Defendant Solomon filed her opposition on February 27, 2025. Defendant Canton filed his joinder to Solomon’s opposition on February 27, 2025. Plaintiff filed its reply on March 5, 2025.

C.C.P. §664.6 provides, as follows: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

Here, the Settlement Agreement provides that upon reaching the settlement, “Plaintiff shall notify the Court that Plaintiff and Defendants have reached a settlement, and shall request that the Court dismiss the case without prejudice and retain jurisdiction for enforcement of the settlement pursuant to CCP section 664.6.” (Decl. of Willett ¶2, Exh. A at §2.c.i, emphasis added.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement is proper.

Defendants shall offer two acting roles (each a “Role” and collectively the “Roles”), which meet the requirements of subsection c.v. below, for Renee Willett (“Willett”) in a motion picture, television or streaming production within the next twenty-four (24) months following the date of full-execution of this Settlement Agreement. The Roles offered to Willet will be at Defendants’ sole and absolute discretion, and Plaintiff acknowledges and agrees that Willet shall not be guaranteed any specific Role in any specific production. Defendants shall make good faith efforts to obtain an opportunity for Willett to audition for an acting part in one (or more) of the “Power” spin-off series, provided however Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendants do not control these productions and, therefore, cannot guarantee any auditions or that any acting part therein will be offered to Willett. In the event Willett accepts any offer of a part in any of the Power spin-offs, then each such acceptance of a part shall be deemed a Role hereunder.

Subsection 2.c.v of “Consideration” provides the specific features of the Roles:

The Roles shall be parts with a proper noun name (i.e. “Jill” or “Samantha”, not “waitress” or “receptionist” etc.) with no less than ten (10) lines of dialogue with Willett’s Role being readily identifiable (i.e. the character Willet is portraying is perceptible in the scene(s) by the viewer, whether Willet as an individual is identifiable or not), and shall be in the final edit of the motion picture production, television production or streaming production, whichever is applicable, subject to the customary edit rights of third party distributors of such productions. All other aspects of the Roles shall be at Defendants’ discretion.

Should an Event of Default occur with respect to Defendants’ failure to offer Willett one Role and is uncured by Defendants all as set forth in Section 2.c hereinabove, then Defendants agree to pay Plaintiff the amount of $50,000. If an Event of Default occurs with respect to Defendants’ failure to offer Willett two (2) Roles and is uncured by Defendants all as set forth in Section 2.c hereinabove, then Defendants agree to pay Plaintiff the amount of $100,000. Upon Rene Willett signing with an agency that interviews her under subsection vi, then the total liability under this Section 2.c.xii shall be reduced by $50,000.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants breached the Settlement Agreement because she was not provided with the Roles. (Decl. of Willett ¶5.) First, Plaintiff declares the following with regard to her role in Red Sonja:

The first role in the movie “Red Sonja” had only 3 lines. The agreement states that there would be two roles with no less than 10 lines each and that I would be credited on IMDb.com. I flew all the way to Bulgaria at my own expense, only to learn that the first role in the movie “Red Sonja” was only a 3-4 line role. . . . When I arrived in Bulgaria, I could not communicate with anyone because I do not speak Bulgarian. I did not know anyone on set, nor was I able to meet with the director of “Red Sonja” to talk about my role. I was promised that my role would be extended, but given no instructions on how to facilitate . . ..

I was not offered a Role in “The Stranger” as Defendants have asserted. As of today, there are three “Strangers” films. I was not offered any roles in the trilogy, nor did I receive any other offers for Roles. I requested that Defendants provide me by December 12, 2023, with any evidence that other Roles were offered. No such evidence was ever provided. Courtney Solomon represented to me that I would be included in his and Mark Canton’s projects including “After”, “Strangers,” “Dungeons and Dragons”, “Ghost” and “Power”. Courtney Solomon also said that the star in “Dungeons and Dragons” would be an actor from the Netflix hit show “Bridgerton”. This made me very excited and I even housed Dorothy Canton in my Miami home under the assumption that I would be featured in her family’s films.

Plaintiff declares her attorney notified Defendants that they breached the Settlement Agreement and sent a Notice of Default letter on November 13, 2023. (Decl. of Willett ¶10, Exh. B.) Plaintiff declares that to date, Defendants have failed to cure their breach of the Settlement Agreement. (Decl. of Willett ¶10.)

In opposition, Solomon declares that Willett was offered the role of Princess Zarkan in Red Sonja, but does not indicate if the role met the requirements specified in §2.c.v. (See Decl. of Solomon ¶¶5-6, Exh. B.) Further, Solomon declares that she also “caused Willett to be offered a named, speaking role in the motion picture, The Strangers. [She] spoke to Willett about the role offered to her in The Strangers over the phone, and [she] told her that the film was being shot in Slovakia. Willett ultimately decided to turn down the role that was offered to her in The Strangers, giving the reason that she did not want to travel back and forth between Bulgaria and Slovakia for filming.” (See Decl. of Solomon ¶8.) Again, Solomon fails to indicate if the role met the requirements specified in §2.c.v.

According to §2.c.xii of the Settlement Agreement, “[i]f an Event of Default occurs with respect to Defendants’ failure to offer Willett two (2) Roles and is uncured by Defendants all as set forth in Section 2.c hereinabove, then Defendants agree to pay Plaintiff the amount of $100,000. Upon Rene Willett signing with an agency that interviews her under subsection vi, then the total liability under this Section 2.c.xii shall be reduced by $50,000.” (Decl. of Willett ¶2, Exh. A at §2.c.xii.)

Willett declares that she was not signed with an agency. (See Decl. of Willett ¶8.) Defendants’ argument that Willett waived the requirement that she be signed with an agency is unavailing. (Opposition, pg. 13.) Defendants fail to identify any waivers or amendments in writing and executed by both parties, as required by the Settlement Agreement. (Decl. of Willett ¶2, Exh. A at §12.)

Therefore, Defendants owe Plaintiff $100,000.00 pursuant to §2.c.xii of the Settlement Agreement.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file a proposed Judgment within 5 days. The Court sets a hearing on an Order to Show Cause re Entry of Judgment on June 18, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 71.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court