## Facts

- Charlie Sheen signed an agreement connected to his starring role on *Two and a Half Men* with Chuck Lorre and WB Studio Enterprises, Inc. (WB), providing Sheen a per-episode fee.
- The agreement included a guarantee of at least 24 episodes.
- During production, Sheen was hospitalized, and production was suspended.
- After being released from the hospital, Sheen asserted that, less than two weeks after hospitalization, he was ready to return to work and was mentally and physically able to continue production.
- Sheen claimed that shooting scripts were not being produced, and the show did not resume even though he was prepared to perform.
- WB sought assurances from Sheen that he would enter treatment for his health issues; Sheen declined to provide that assurance.
- WB shut down production, stating it believed Sheen was not healthy enough to continue, especially without medical treatment.
- Sheen demanded compensation based on the contract’s minimum-episode guarantee; defendants refused to pay the demanded amount.
- Sheen and related entities filed a civil complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Santa Monica Courthouse), Case No. SC111794, alleging claims that included breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary, and recovery of unpaid wages.
- The lawsuit did not result in a published merits ruling; the docket reflects a request for dismissal of the complaint with prejudice in late September 2011 and a notice of entry of dismissal in early October 2011, consistent with a confidential settlement.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants breached the episode-compensation agreement by shutting down production and refusing to pay Sheen the compensation he claimed was owed under the minimum-episode guarantee.
2. Whether Sheen was ready, willing, and able to perform and, if so, whether defendants wrongfully prevented performance and triggered contractual liability.
3. Whether defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in administering the production shutdown and payment decisions tied to Sheen’s role.
4. Whether Chuck Lorre (and related production entities) intentionally interfered with Sheen’s contract or expected economic benefits connected to the series.
5. Whether Sheen could sue as an intended third-party beneficiary of agreements between other production participants (as alleged in the complaint).
6. Whether the unpaid amounts claimed for episodes not produced constituted “unpaid wages” recoverable under California law, in addition to (or instead of) contract damages.

## Decision

- The matter proceeded as a Los Angeles County Superior Court civil action (No. SC111794) based on Sheen’s complaint and defendants’ responses.
- The case did not produce a published judicial opinion resolving the contract, tort, or wage claims on the merits.
- The dispute was resolved by settlement, followed by a dismissal of the complaint with prejudice as reflected on the trial-court docket.
- As a result, there is no precedential “holding” from a reported decision in this matter; the formal case outcome is dismissal with prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- A breach of contract claim generally requires a contract, plaintiff’s performance (or excuse), defendant’s breach, and resulting damages; disputes may arise over whether a party was able and willing to perform and whether the other side prevented performance.
- The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can be alleged where a party claims the other exercised contractual discretion or control over performance in a way that deprived the first party of expected contractual benefits.
- Intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage typically require intentional wrongful conduct directed at a contract or economic relationship, causation, and damages.
- Third-party beneficiary liability may be alleged where a plaintiff claims an agreement between others was made expressly for the plaintiff’s benefit and the plaintiff seeks to enforce that promise.
- A claim styled as recovery of unpaid wages may be pleaded where compensation is asserted to be due for work performed (or, depending on the theory, compensation treated as wages owed under governing law), which can affect remedies and statutory consequences.
- A settlement followed by a dismissal with prejudice ends the civil action without a merits adjudication and ordinarily bars refiling the same claims between the same parties.

## Conclusion

In *Sheen v. Lorre, Docket No. SC111794 (2011)*, Charlie Sheen sued Chuck Lorre, related production entities, and WB in Los Angeles County Superior Court over a *Two and a Half Men* production shutdown and alleged nonpayment of episode-based compensation, asserting contract, implied-covenant, interference, third-party beneficiary, and unpaid-wage theories; the case ended in a confidential settlement and was dismissed with prejudice, leaving no published merits ruling.
