Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 22STCV19704 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., O’Melveny & Meyers LLP, and Matthew T. Kline (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

This action concerns a dispute regarding the use of funds held in an escrow account pursuant to a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”). Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) writ of prohibition; (2) declaratory relief and injunction; and (3) interference with contractual relations. Moving Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings (the “Arbitration Motion”) on the grounds that the Settlement contains a binding arbitration provision (the “Arbitration Agreement”) that requires that Plaintiffs’ claims be adjudicated in arbitration. Moving Defendants also filed a motion to seal (the “Motion to Seal”) portions of the Arbitration Motion which discuss provisions of the confidential Settlement.

The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to move the parties in an arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible. (Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 23.) The FAA is consistent with the federal policy to ensure the enforceability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate. (Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (1995) 514 U.S. 52, 57.) A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. (CCP § 1281.) California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.) On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy unless grounds exist not to compel arbitration. (CCP § 1281.2.)

In support of the Arbitration Motion, Moving Defendants provide evidence of the Settlement. (Declaration of Tyler C. Bittner (“Bittner Decl.”), Exhibit A.) The Settlement contains a provision which provides, in relevant part:

“Any and all controversies, claims, or disputes arising out of or relating to this Settlement Agreement or the interpretation, performance, or breach thereof, including, but not limited to, alleged violations of state or federal statutory of common law rights or duties, and the determination of the scope or applicability of this agreement to arbitrate… shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration.” (Id. at § 22.)

The Court finds that Moving Defendants have provided evidence of a binding Arbitration Agreement. As the Motion is unopposed, Plaintiffs have not controverted the validity of the Arbitration Agreement. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion and orders that this matter be stayed pending the resolution of arbitration. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) The Court sets a status conference for January 26, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report by January 19, 2023.

Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open. (Cal. Rules of Court, r. 2.550(c).) Subject to certain exceptions, a court record must not be filed under seal without a court order. (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 486.)

As it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court