Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV23086, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23086    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 52

Writers Guild of America, West, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Intervene

Non-party Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. (WGA) moves for leave to intervene in this action between plaintiffs Lee Goldberg and Adventures in Television and defendants Boomtown Medial Partners, LLC and Fast Charlie NOLA, LLC.

Timeliness

            Defendants argue WGA failed to timely file this motion.  Intervention, whether mandatory or permissive, must be done “upon timely application.”  (CCP § 387(d)(1) & (2).)  To determine timeliness, the court must examine “the totality of the circumstances” with a “focus on three primary factors: (1) the stage of the proceedings in which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for the delay.”  (Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Lacy (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 560, 574 (Crestwood).)  “ ‘[P]rejudice to existing parties is “the most important consideration in deciding whether a motion for intervention is timely.” ’ ”  (Ibid.)  “This does not, however, include prejudice that would result from allowing intervention.  [Citation.]  Rather, only the ‘ “prejudice caused by the movant’s delay” ’ should be considered.”  (Ibid.)

            Though WGA could have filed this motion earlier, the motion is timely.  First, this case is in its early stages.  On August 18, 2022, defendants answered, and on September 19, 2022, they filed an anti-SLAPP motion—thereby staying discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(g).)  WGA moved to intervene on November 16, 2022.  No trial date has been set.

            Second, defendants fail to show prejudice resulting from WGA’s delay.  Instead, defendants argue prejudice arising from other reasons.  They argue intervention would prejudice them because compelling arbitration could preempt their anti-SLAPP motion.  Whether the court compels arbitration and vacates the anti-SLAPP hearing is a matter of the merits of WGA’s petition.  That purported prejudice could occur even if WGA filed its petition almost two months earlier.  Moreover, defendants generally can only file an anti-SLAPP motion within 60 days after service of summons.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(f).)  Requiring non-parties to move to intervene before that would impose an excessively strict deadline. 

            Third, WGA does not provide a good reason for its delay.  In its reply, it argues it initiated an arbitration claim against defendants on October 10 and filed this motion only because defendants refused to stay this action.  (Reply, p. 3.)  But as defendants show, WGA first expressed its intent to arbitrate this dispute on August 17, 2022.  (Abrams Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C.)  It wrote to defendants that determining writing credits on Fast Charlie “must be made by an Arbitration Committee in the event a credit arbitration is required.”  (Ibid.)  WGA does not explain why it waited another two months before filing this motion.    

The first two factors support a finding of timeliness, and the second factor is the most important.  Despite WGA’s lack of a good reason for the delay, the court finds its motion is timely. 

Mandatory Intervention

WGA is entitled to intervene in this action.  “The court shall, upon timely application,” permit intervention if “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.”  (CCP § 387(d)(1)(B).) 

(1) WGA’s Interest

WGA claims a protectable interest relating to the transaction that is the subject of the action.  This action is a dispute between the parties about whether plaintiffs are entitled to compensation and credit as writers or co-producers of defendants’ movie, Fast Charlie.  The primary transaction that is the subject of this action is the “option/purchase agreement” between plaintiffs and defendants’ predecessor in interest, under which defendants purchased an option to make a movie using Goldberg’s screenplay titled Gun Monkeys.  (Comp., ¶¶ 10-14; Grodnik Decl. ISO Anti-SLAPP Motion, Ex. F.)  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment requiring defendants to gives them a “ ‘Written by’ credit and a ‘Co-Producer’ credit” in “the main titles of the motion picture” and a “ ‘billing block’ credit.”  (Comp., ¶ 39.) 

WGA has an interest in that transaction.  WGA negotiated an “industry-wide collective bargaining agreement.”  (Segall Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. 1.)  That agreement “gives the Guild the right and obligation to determine writing credits for all motion pictures (both features and television programs) written under its terms.  To carry out that obligation, the Guild has established detailed written procedures for the determination of writing credits.”  (Segall Decl., ¶ 4.)  “The credits issues raised in” WGA’s separate arbitration proceeding against defendants “must be arbitrated under and [sic] Article 10.A.1-2 of the” agreement.”  (Bennie Decl., ¶ 6.)  “The outcome of this dispute in the mandatory arbitration will also allow the WGAW to finally determine credits on the picture” Fast Charlie.  (Ibid.)

Defendants argue the only property or transaction in this action is the agreement between them and Goldberg, not WGA’s collective bargaining agreement.  (Opp., p. 11.)  The agreement between the parties, however, explicitly requires that writing credit be given “subject to the WGA.”  (Grodnik Decl. ISO Anti-SLAPP Motion, Ex. F, ¶ 9.a.)  It also provides, “Purchaser or its’ assignee shall be a WAG signatory.”  (Id., ¶ 2.)  Moreover, the writing credit for the movie Fast Charlie constitutes property that is the subject of this action.  WGA has an interest in deciding the movie’s writing credits.

Defendants also argue that defendants “never agreed to be subject to” the arbitration provision and instead “WGA unilaterally attempted to impose signatory status on Defendants.”  (Opp., p. 13.)  But as discussed above, defendants’ option purchase agreement with plaintiffs requires defendants to be signatories to the WGA and provides that plaintiffs’ writing credit would be “subject to the WGA.”  It would also be premature to decide this question now.  It is part of the merits of WGA’s petition in intervention to compel arbitration.  At this stage, WGA presents enough evidence to show it claims an interest in this action.

(2) Disposition of the Action May Impair WGA’s Interest

Disposition of the action may impair WGA’s ability to protect its interest.  This action may result in a declaratory judgment on whether plaintiffs are entitled to credits as writers or co-producers of Fast Charlie.  If the court denies intervention, it would determine that result without giving WGA an opportunity to be heard. 

Furthermore, WGA’s interest goes beyond the specific outcome of who gets which credits.  It is the collective bargaining representative for writers in the motion picture industry.  It has an interest in protecting its members in general and in maintaining its authority to determine writing credits.  Regardless of this case’s outcome, having the court decide it without WGA would necessarily impair that interest.

(3) Adequate Representation of WGA’s Interest   

The existing parties do not adequately represent WGA’s interest.  Defendants’ interest is adverse to WGA’s.  Plaintiffs Goldberg and Adventures in Television, meanwhile, have not moved to compel arbitration of this action.  WGA seeks to enforce an arbitration provision in the “2020 Theatrical and Television Basic Agreement.”  (Segall Decl., Ex. 1.)  Defendant Boomtown Media Partners LLC signed a “letter of adherence to” that agreement (Bennie Decl., Ex. 1), but plaintiffs did not. 

Moreover, it is not clear WGA’s and plaintiffs’ interests are fully aligned.  As WGA wrote to defendants, “[I]t is the guild’s judgment that the [sic] Mr. Goldberg is entitled to be listed as a participating writer on the” Notice of Tentative Writing Credits “and compete for writing credit should he elect to do so.  In making this determination, the Guild makes no determination regarding whether Mr. Goldberg is entitled to writing credit.”  (Abrams Decl., Ex. C.) 

In this action, Goldberg and Adventures in Television seek a “written by” credit.  WGA’s interest is not necessarily that plaintiffs get what they want.  As the collective bargaining representative of both Goldberg and credited screenwriter Richard Wenk, WGA must protect the interests of both writers.  And as discussed above, WGA’s ultimate interest includes protecting its authority and status in the motion picture industry, not simply helping Goldberg win this case. 

Permissive Intervention

            In the alternative, the court exercises its discretion to permit WGA to intervene.  “The court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.”  (CCP § 387(d)(2).)  WGA has an interest in the matter in litigation and, in part, an interest in plaintiffs’ success.

Disposition

            Writers Guild of America, West, Inc.’s motion for leave to intervene is granted.  Intervenor Writers Guld of America, West, Inc. is ordered to file its petition in intervention (Memo., Ex. A) forthwith.