The Brief

When you run a small business, everything can turn into a number.

For Annenn Nou, it’s the 700 donuts that you can sell on a good day. The 4 a.m. start time to bake said donuts. The almost eight years since she and her husband took the plunge to start their own business.

Of late, a different set of numbers occupies her mind: 08/31.

That's the end of this month, when her Echo Park shop, Ms. Donut, is shutting down. The property was put on the market in October and recently sold.

"We've seen a lot of stores that were here at the same time as us disappear. Like for example, Taco Bell, and KFC became Starbucks. The liquor store that was in front of our store became parking," Nou said.

And the story of Ms. Donut is not just the story of an endlessly changing city.

Annenn Nou inside Ms. Donut, a business she and her husband started in 2015.

(

Fiona Ng

/

LAist

)

The donut bond

There's an oft-cited estimate about donut shops in Southern California, that some 80% of them are owned by Cambodians. The lore started with a man named Ted Ngoy, who fled the Khmer Rouge, landed in Southern California, and carved out an empire on fried dough and glaze.

When newcomers from the old country sought him out, Ngoy was all too happy to impart his knowledge. And one shop after another, the tie between donuts and the diaspora was fortified.

When Nou and her husband Sophany emigrated from Belgium to Southern California in 2015, they knew they wanted to start a business. As to what kind — there was little question.

"It's kind of the Cambodian culture to have a donut shop. If you go see the other donut shop, almost all of the owners of Cambodian. So this was, it was the continuity of that," Nou said.

The couple was living in Riverside County and looked at many storefronts across the region. Six months into their search, they drove up to Echo Park to check out a little standalone donut shop that commands maximum visibility on Glendale Blvd.

Love at first sight

"In French we say, 'le coup de foudre.' It means that you see something or someone, and then right away it's like it's striking you," Nou said. "When we first visited the store, that's how I felt. I knew it. I told my husband 'that's it.'"

They took over the shop from a distant relative, who ran it for 16 years.

"Echo Park is so nice. It's so green. The store was so cute. It was so simple, you know, and nothing too much. It was still vintage, and it was perfect," she said.

The funny thing, they knew nothing about donuts.

Annenn (left) and Sophany Nou with two of their three children at Ms. Donut.

(

Fiona Ng

/

LAist

)

"My husband learned how to do donuts a few months before, but he was really good at it. So his donuts are really good, I have to be honest. And, I started to learn how to sell donuts and do the pastries — maybe a month before we took over the store."

And so they grinded, raising three young kids from working 12, 15-hour days, seven days a week. Along the way, the Nous became a fixture of the neighborhood.

"Most of the families are coming to a donut shop. We have three, four generations that come and we find out that they are brothers, they are mothers, they are sons, daughters," Nou said. "We've seen them grow. They've seen our children and our family grow too."

Their patrons have rallied around the Nous, creating a GoFundMe campaign and holding fundraisers for the family.

Ms. Donut, the mom-and-pop donut shop in Echo Park.

(

Fiona Ng/LAist

)

What's next?

What's next is the great unknown. Although the couple would love to revive Ms. Donut, the cost is prohibitive. Nou said she and her husband hope to eventually save up enough to make another go at it. But they know they're done with Echo Park.

"We've seen a lot of change. I'm not saying that it's for the worst or for the better, it's just that we've seen change and we've seen a lot of families that have [been] moving out," said Nou.

"We thought that we will grow old here, that our future was here. So it was kind of shocking and heartbreaking to know that it was about to stop."

News that Warner Bros. Discovery is up for sale has Hollywood buzzing. The legendary film studio, which has grown to include streaming services and cable channels, is currently accepting non-binding bids until Thursday. According to company spokesperson Robert Gibbs, they expect to have a decision about the sale by Christmas.

It's become something of a Hollywood parlor game to guess who will ultimately take over the business, which was founded in 1923 by four brothers: Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack Warner. They owned a movie theater in Pennsylvania before coming to Hollywood to make movies.

Warner Brothers Pictures found one of its first silent picture stars in a German shepherd named Rin Tin Tin. By 1927, the studio made history with its feature-length "talkie" picture: The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson.

Over the years, Warner Brothers has made or distributed countless iconic films including: Casablanca, The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon in the 1940's. The list goes on, with titles like A Clockwork Orange, Goodfellas, Barbie, as well as Bugs Bunny and all the Looney Tunes cartoons.

Warners Brothers has had multiple owners over the decades. Three years ago, Warner Media, as it was called, merged with Discovery. And in June, the company announced it would split in two, with film, TV and streaming studios in one camp, and in the other, mostly legacy cable channels, including CNN.

The planned split has not yet happened, and a new buyer might get the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery and its film and TV libraries.

As the film industry continues to consolidate, there's speculation that Warner Brothers' old rival Paramount could take over. Having just merged as Paramount Skydance, CEO David Ellison has already made several overtures.

The idea of streaming giant Netflix buying the company has raised antitrust concerns on Capitol Hill. In an earnings call last month, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos told investors, "We've been very clear in the past that we have no interest in owning legacy media networks. There is no change there."

Industry watchers suggest other suitors could be Comcast, Amazon, or an investor who's not already in the entertainment business.

Regardless of whoever does end up buying the company, theater owners say they hope making movies for cinemas will be a priority.

"As long as we have more movies," says Daniel Loria, senior vice president at The Boxoffice Company, which analyzes data from studios and theaters. "That doesn't mean the same amount, doesn't mean less, but more movies. I think you're going to find folks in the movie theater industry support any business decision that gets us there."

Loria recalls that after Disney purchased Fox and Fox Searchlight, their combined studios significantly reduced the number of films they released in the theaters. Crunching the numbers, Loria says in 2016, a year before the merger announcement, Disney and Fox released a total of 38 theatrical films. This year, the consolidated studios released 18.

That's a problem for theater owners who've been struggling to bring audiences back to cinemas after the COVID-19 pandemic shut them down; they're competing with movie-watching on TVs, computers and phones.

Some theater owners and cinephiles also fear studio conglomerates will only greenlight a few big-budget blockbusters, leaving the lower budget indies behind.

"The concern is you're going to see less of that risk taking, less of that experimentation and less of that embracing new directors, new filmmakers in the future," says Max Friend, the CEO of Filmbot, the ticketing platform for independent cinemas in the U.S. "It's really important that there are studios that are funding and supporting, cultivating that kind of work."

He points out that this year, Warner Brothers made a string of critical hits, including Ryan Coogler's Sinners, the horror film Weapons and Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another.

Friend wonders if the next owner will take similar risks with future original, creative films.

Warner Bros. Discovery is a financial supporter of NPR.

Copyright 2025 NPR

A downtown hearing kicked off Wednesday, during which a federal judge will consider holding the city of Los Angeles in contempt of court. The hearing is the latest step in a long-running legal saga regarding the city's response to the region’s homelessness crisis.

The hearing was ordered by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who has been overseeing a settlement in a lawsuit brought against the city by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a group of downtown business and property owners. L.A. Alliance sued the city, and county, in 2020 for failing to adequately address homelessness.

Several witnesses are expected to testify during the contempt-of-court hearing, including Gita O’Neill, the new head of the region’s top homeless services agency, and Matt Szabo, the L.A. city administrative officer.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger watched at least part of Wednesday’s hearing in the courtroom.

Why now?

Carter said in court documents that he’s concerned “the city has demonstrated a continuous pattern of delay” in meeting its obligations under court orders. During a hearing last week, the judge pointed to several delays, including recently reported issues related to data and interviewing city employees.

The judge noted that similar concerns have come up at previous hearings. Carter told attorneys for the city in March 2024 that he “indicated to the mayor that I’ve already reached the decision that the plaintiffs were misled” and “this is bad faith,” according to court transcripts.

The judge said in a Nov. 14 order that he’s concerned the “delay continues to this day.”

The contempt hearing is expected to cover whether the city has complied with court orders and provided regular updates to the court under the settlement agreement.

Reducing delays

Attorneys for the city have pushed back against the hearing, filing objections with the judge and making an unsuccessful emergency request with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block it from happening.

City authorities also asked the appeals court to press pause on the judge’s order to appoint a monitor in the case to make sure the city stays on track with the settlement. The city argued that Carter handed the monitor “a blank check to interfere with the democratic process,” according to court documents.

The appeals court partly denied the city’s request. It allowed Wednesday’s hearing to move forward, but it agreed to pause the appointment of Daniel Garrie as monitor.

In light of that response, attorneys for the city have argued that looking at the city’s cooperation with Garrie “would be inappropriate” during the hearing and that L.A. “cannot be held in contempt for either the substance or the manner of its compliance with the order,” according to court documents.

Previous hearings related to the settlement have elicited tense questioning of witnesses and harsh words from the judge, who has been vocal about reducing delays and moving the case forward.

In an opening statement Wednesday, Theane Evangelis — one of the attorneys representing the city — urged the judge to “turn down the heat” on the closely watched case. Evangelis said the “city is constantly under fire” in court while L.A. has made “enormous strides” in getting people off the streets.

Elizabeth Mitchell, lead attorney for L.A. Alliance, said the city treats transparency as a burden.

She said Wednesday that the “city still fights oversight harder than it fights homelessness” and that the court should address L.A. 's “consistent” delays throughout the case.

What’s next?

The hearing will resume Dec. 2, when more witnesses can appear in person.

City authorities told the court they believed a one-day hearing wouldn't be enough time to go over all the evidence.

If the judge does find the city of L.A. in contempt of court and that it "isn't doing what it promised to do," the consequences could range from nothing all the way up to serious sanctions, according to Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for L.A. Alliance.

Umhofer told LAist after the hearing that sanctions could include the court ordering more intensive monitoring of the city’s performance, imposing new requirements on the city, monetary penalties or possibly a receivership.

Carter previously stopped short of seizing control of the city’s hundreds of millions of dollars in homelessness spending and handing it to a court-appointed receiver, deciding against that option in a June ruling.

L.A. Alliance is considering asking for an extension to the settlement agreement, Umhofer said.

“The city has gotten away with not complying for a very long time,” he said. “So extending the agreement can be among the things that we might ask for ... given the pattern of delay and obstruction."

Evangelis and Bradley Hamburger, another attorney representing the city, declined LAist’s request for comment after the hearing.