DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA, INC. VS KNIGHTS OF BADASSDOM PRODUCTION I, LLC, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP00735    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 25

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

(CCP § 1285, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Directors Guild of America, Inc.’s Petition for Confirmation of Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment in Conformity Therewith is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 17, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On February 18, 2020, Petitioner Directors Guild of America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) initiated this action by filing the instant Petition for Confirmation of Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment in Conformity Therewith (the “Petition”) against Respondents Knights of Badassdom Production I, LLC (“Knights of Badassdom”) and Indievest Pictures, Inc. (“Indievest”) (collectively, “Respondents”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard

“Regardless of the particular relief granted, any arbitrator’s award is enforceable only when confirmed as a judgment of the superior court.” (O’Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 278.) “Once a petition to confirm an award is filed, the superior court must select one of only four courses of action: it may confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.” (EHM Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1063.) “It is well settled that the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely narrow.” (California Faculty Assn. v. Superior Court (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 935, 943.) “Neither the trial court, nor the appellate court, may ‘review the merits of the dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence, or the arbitrator’s reasoning, nor may we correct or review an award because of an arbitrator’s legal or factual error, even if it appears on the award’s face.” (EHM Productions, supra, at p. 1063-64.)

1. Discussion

Petitioner states that it and Respondent Knights of Badassdom entered into a collective bargaining agreement known as the Director’s Guild of America Basic Agreement of 2008 (the “Basic Agreement”), a copy of which was also filed. (Pet., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) Respondent Indievest executed a theatrical guaranty agreement with Petitioner whereby it guaranteed Respondents Knights of Badassdom would perform all terms and obligations arising under the Basic Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. B, ¶ 3.) Pursuant to the terms of the Basic Agreement, Petitioner submitted a grievance and arbitration dispute regarding the residuals owed by Respondents. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

On January 16, 2020, neutral arbitrator Mark Burstein (the “Arbitrator”) rendered an award in favor of Petitioner requiring Respondents to pay residuals of $8,959.08, late charges of $1,272.86 as of January 16, 2020, and late charges of $2.95 every day thereafter until the residuals are paid in full (the “Arbitration Award”). (Pet., Exh. B, p. 3.)

A. Filing Requirements (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4)

CCP § 1285.4 states: “A petition under this chapter shall:

1. Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement.

2. Set forth the names of the arbitrators.

(c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.”

Petitioner has set forth the substance of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and submitted a copy of the Arbitration Award, which includes the name of the neutral Arbitrator. (Pet., Exh., B.) Thus, Petitioner has satisfied the filing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4.

B. Service of the Arbitration Award, Petition, and Notice of Hearing (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1283.6, 1290.4)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 1283.6 provides that “[t]he neutral arbitrator shall serve a signed copy of the award on each party to the arbitration personally or by registered or certified mail or as provided in the agreement.”  (Emphasis added.)

In addition, Code of Civil Procedure, section 1290.4 states, in pertinent part:

“(a) A copy of the petition and a written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereof and any other papers upon which the petition is based shall be served in the manner provided in the arbitration agreement for the service of such petition and notice.

(b) If the arbitration agreement does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision: ¶ (1) Service within this State shall be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.”

Here, the Basic Agreement states that service of a petition to confirm an arbitration award “may be served by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested.” (Pet., Exh. A, ¶ 2-603(b).) Petitioner’s proof of service indicates that the Notice of Hearing and Petition were served via e-mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. (2/18/20 Proof of Service.) Thus, Petitioner has satisfied the service requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4.

However, the Petition does not include a proof of service demonstrating that the neutral Arbitrator himself served a copy of the Arbitration Award on parties. Indeed, it was Petitioner itself that served Respondents with a copy of the Arbitration Award. Thus, Petitioner has not satisfied Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Directors Guild of America, Inc.’s Petition for Confirmation of Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment in Conformity Therewith is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioner is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.