Judge denies Charlie Sheen's request in contract dispute
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Connor has denied a request by Charlie Sheen's legal team for a temporary restraining order to stop the arbitration proceedings in Sheen’s contract dispute with Warner Bros. and "Two and a Half Men" co-creator Chuck Lorre.
"Despite Charlie Sheen asking for extraordinary relief to stop the arbitration the court's ruling was not a surprise," said Lorre's attorney Howard Weitzman. "The judge found no "emergency" existed and ordered Mr. Sheen's attorneys to follow normal procedure in their attempts to halt the arbitration of this dispute."
Sheen's team said they will next take the matter up with Judge Allan Goodman, who was the judge originally assigned to Sheen's $100-million lawsuit against Warner Bros. and Lorre. The arbitration firm JAMS has already started preliminary work on handling the dispute over Sheen's firing from the hit CBS sitcom. His lawyers will continue to try to halt arbitration in the case, being handled by JAMS.
Sheen’s lawyers maintain that the actor’s rights would be violated if his case were not heard in court.
-- Joe Flint
Related post:
Charlie Sheen seeks TRO in dispute against Warner Bros. and Chuck Lorre.
For the record: This post was updated to include a quote from Chuck Lorre's attorney Howard Weitzman.
Winning!!??
Posted by: antyfed | March 23, 2011 at 11:04 AM
Poor Charlie just can't stay out of the headlines. See why in the ultra-factual “A Day in the Life of Charlie Sheen” on The Loop Now (post number 7191), along with pithy commentary and our timely news quiz.
theloopnow.com
Posted by: kcmildcat | March 23, 2011 at 11:20 AM
If it went to court, Charlie gets more publicity and his attorneys make ten times as much money. I, for one, don't want to be watching week after week of "news coverage" of this three ring circus. Get it over with quietly in arbitration so that Charlie can get back on his drug regimen and stay on track for his inevitable over-dose.
Posted by: JohnRJ08 | March 23, 2011 at 12:10 PM
Will some one please kill the reruns of 2.5 men !!!
Posted by: Enlightenment | March 23, 2011 at 12:16 PM
Not Winning
Posted by: Dreadnok4life | March 23, 2011 at 12:23 PM
It's true, Mr. Charlie Sheen did not refuse to work & did business as usual for so many many years!
Whats the problem with these so-called "head honchos"? The court should open a case and be fair to Mr. Sheen. I feel this is a good example on how the law stands for us working class people.
I'm not an actor, but they have rights too! Just because Warner Bros. or CBS are bigger than us little guys, doesn't mean they are right all the time! Amen.
Posted by: sue | March 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Looks like Judge Connor's tiger blood is more potent.
Posted by: Brainiac | March 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM
Duh, Arbitration!
Posted by: Native American | March 23, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Arbitration is a joke. Arbitrators are hired to side with the corporation. If they don't, they won't be rehired.
Posted by: timelimit | March 23, 2011 at 01:11 PM
I guess there are some arbitration clauses that even Mr. Singer's office can't get around.
Posted by: Brett | March 23, 2011 at 01:31 PM
This entire incident is a travesty, for God sake...if it were you or I or any other "average Joe" carrying on, knowingly doing drugs and hanging with hookers, we'd be fired from our jobs on the spot! What? Because Sheen is an actor and "stars" in a top rated TV show, he is exempt from such stupid, immoral and immature behavior? No "Diplomatic Immunity" for TV and movie stars. SAG ought to revoke and suspend Charlie's card. He is not a good role model for anyone, this joke has gone on long enough. The man is clearly deranged and dillusional, and my heart sincerely goes out to his family.
Posted by: kindlady1 | March 23, 2011 at 01:36 PM
PS, Because of all of the publicity on Charlie Sheen, I sincerely doubt he could ever get a Jury of his peers to decide favorably, unless they had Lindsay and Michael Lohan and Paris Hilton as jurors 1, 2 and 3. Sorry, Charlie.....NOT WINNING.
Posted by: kindlady1 | March 23, 2011 at 01:38 PM
If he is successful at his job, why does it matter what he does in his personal time? Hollywood is the last place to look for moral or ethical heroes. Money talks, and you know the rest. I certainly wouldn't recommend any Hollywood celebrity for a hero. They are in a business, and it shouldn't be anything personal.
Posted by: burkestr2 | March 23, 2011 at 08:31 PM
i thought this article would e about the dispute itself... I wanted to know about that not a denied restraining order... but that is pretty pathetic
Posted by: Kazu | March 31, 2011 at 07:56 AM