Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCP01236, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

PETITION FOR CONFIRMATION OF ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH

On March 27, 2024, Arbitrator Mark Burstein (“Arbitrator Burstein”) issued an arbitration award in favor Petitioner Directors Guild of America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and against Respondents Y-Stone Production, LLC (“Y-Stone”) and Y Film Yapimcilik Produksiyon Reklam Ve Organizasyon Hizmetleri Anonim Sirketi (“Y Film”) (collectively, “Respondents”) in the principal sum of $90,645.24 ($66,733.03 in residuals and $23,912.21 in late charges). The arbitration arose out of Respondents’ failure to report activity and pay residuals for the exploitation of the theatrical motion picture titled The Ottoman Lieutenant in supplemental markets, on free television, and via new media worldwide. The arbitration award also directs Respondents to pay accrued interest at the rate of $49.67 per day until the residuals are paid in full and to pay half of the Arbitrator’s fees and expenses of $2,600.

On April 18, 2024, Petitioner filed a Petition for Confirmation of Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment in Conformity Therewith (the “Petition”) against Respondents.

On April 30, 2024, Petitioner filed a Notice of Hearing on its Petition. Petitioner seeks a total judgment of $90,645.24, consisting of $66,733.03 in residuals and $23,912.21 in late charges). Petitioner also seeks interest in the sum of $49.67 per day from March 27, 2024 until the residuals are paid in full.

Once arbitration is concluded, “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.)¿ Any of the parties may file a petition with the court, which must then “confirm the award, correct and confirm it, vacate it, or dismiss the petition.” (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§§¿1285, 1286; 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.)¿

Petitioners seek an order confirming the arbitration award issued on March 27, 2024.

An arbitrator’s award is enforceable only after being confirmed by a court of law. (O’Hare, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 278.)¿ “An award that has not been confirmed or vacated has the same force and effect as a contract in writing between the parties to the arbitration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.6.)¿ Thus, the court must first evaluate and confirm the initial arbitration award.¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4 states: “A petition under this chapter shall:

a. 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.

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

Here, Petitioners submit the written Final Award issued by Arbitrator Burstein. (Pet., Ex. B.) Petitioners also submit a copy of the arbitration agreement between the parties. (Pet., Ex. A.) Petitioners have satisfied the filing requirements.

B. Service of the Arbitration Award & Timeliness of Petition (CCP §§ 1283.6, 1288, 1288.4)¿

Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.6 provides that: “The 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.”¿ In addition, a party may seek a court judgment confirming an arbitration award by filing and serving a petition no more than four years, but not less than 10 days, after the award is served.¿ (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§§ 1288, 1288.4.)¿

Here, Petitioners submit proof of service showing the Final Award was served by Arbitrator Burstein by certified mail on March 28, 2024. (Pet., Ex. B.) This Petition followed on April 18, 2024. The Petition is timely.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.4, the statute governing proper service of this motion 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, Petitioners served Respondents with a copy of this Petition and notice of Petition on February 22, 2024 by first-class mail and certified mail which is consistent with the manner service of summons in this State. Petitioner demonstrates that the Petition was properly served.¿

Based on the foregoing, the unopposed Petition for Confirmation of Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment is GRANTED.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court