Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCP00027, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCP00027    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

This case involves the alleged breach of an agreement between Petitioners Innovative Artists Broadcast Division, LLC and Innovative Artists Talent and Literacy Agency, Inc. (“Petitioners”) and Respondent Andrea Tantaros (“Respondent”).

Petitioners orally agreed to act as Respondent’s talent agent in connection with her work in the entertainment industry.  In a dispute before the Labor Commissioner, Petitioners alleged Respondent had failed to pay them the 7% commission they were owed under their oral agreement.  In a July 13, 2022, Determination of Controversy, the Labor Commissioner found in Petitioners’ favor, finding Respondent had improperly withheld commission payments for a period running from 2015 to 2016.  Petitioners now ask the Court to confirm the award of the Labor Commissioner.  Their Petition is unopposed.

            This petition first came on for hearing on March 30, 2023.  In advance of the hearing, the Court published a tentative ruling denying the petition on the basis that Petitioners had not shown Respondent had been properly served with the petition as required by Code Civil Procedure section 1290.4 and because it was not clear whether Petitioners were seeking to confirm or correct the Labor Commissioner’s award.  The Court’s tentative ruling noted the Labor Commissioner’s July 13, 2022, Determination of Controversy found Petitioners:

“are entitled to 7% commission for earnings connected with the Fox Employment Agreement and interest calculated at 10% per annum through the date of satisfaction of the award. Respondent ANDREA TANTAROS, an individual, shall provide an accounting to INNOVATIVE ARTISTS of all earnings from January 2015 through October 6, 20l6 within 30 days of receipt of this Determination and is required to remit 7% commission plus interest within 30 days of the accounting for all unpaid commissions consistent with this Order.” 

(Minute Order, March 30, 2023, at 4-5.)

Petitioners asked the Court to “confirm” this award in the specific amount of $92,630.04 even though the Labor Commissioner never awarded Petitioners that specific sum. (Ibid.) However, the original petition states this accounting was never provided and instead seeks an award of $92,630.04 based on statements made by Respondent at a September 5, 2018, hearing before the Labor Commissioner in which she discussed a salary increase. (Ibid.)  The Court noted this information was available to the Labor Commissioner at the time the July 13, 2022, award was issued and Petitioners do not claim the Labor Commissioner erred in not awarding it a sum certain or provide any basis to alter the Labor Commissioner’s award in this regard. (Ibid.)

The Court held, “If Petitioners decide to re-file a new Petition, they must clarify whether they are simply seeking to confirm the Labor Commissioner’s award as written or are asking the Court to amend or correct that award along with grounds to do so.”   At Petitioners’ request, the Court did not adopt its tentative ruling and continued the hearing to June 1, 2023, so Petitioners could “effectuate service and give notice” of the petition to Respondent (Id. at 5.)

On June 1, the Court denied the petition, finding that Petitioners had not demonstrated Respondent was properly served with the petition, nor did Petitioners clarify whether they are seeking to confirm the Labor Commissioner’s award or to correct it.  (Minute Order, June 1, 2023.) 

On November 9, 2023, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition, indicating that on or around October 25, 2023, the Labor Commissioner issued an amended Determination of Controversy, which does not require Respondent to provide an accounting, instead indicating that Petitioner is entitled to $88,881.40. 

Petitioners now seek to “confirm” this award, seeking $88,881.40 and an accounting.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he proper procedure for enforcing [a money award of the Labor Commissioner] is to first apply to the superior court for judicial confirmation of the award in the same manner as awards of private arbitrators under Code of Civil Procedure section[] 1285” et seq. (Buchwald v. Katz (1972) 8 Cal.3d 493, 499, quotation marks omitted.)  Code of Civil Procedure section 1287.4 provides that “[i]f an award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in conformity therewith,” and “[t]he judgment so entered has the same force and effect as, and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action of the same jurisdictional classification; and it may be enforced like any other judgment of the court in which it is entered, in an action of the same jurisdictional classification.” As such, the Court applies the rules regarding confirmation of arbitration awards to the subject Petition.

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.  The petition shall name as respondent all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.)

The petition must be filed and served no less than 10 days and no more than four years after the award is served on the party seeking confirmation. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1288, 1288.4.) If a petition is not opposed after being duly filed and served on respondent, its allegations are deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.)

Until it is either confirmed or vacated, an award “has the same force and effect as a contract in writing between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.6.)  Code of Civil Procedure 1290.6 provides that a response to a petition to confirm an award must be provided within 10 days after service of the petition, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.2 provides that the party seeking confirmation must provide no less than 10 days’ notice of the hearing.

ANALYSIS

Petitioners have provided an Affidavit of Service indicating that Respondent was served via substitute service at her place of work in New York, and thereafter, mailing a copy to that address on March 19, 2024. 

However, Petitioners seek relief not provided for in the amended Labor Commissioner’s award (an accounting).  Therefore, the Court cannot grant the Petition as requested.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Petition without prejudice.  In the alternative, the Court will grant the Petition if Petitioners forego the request for an accounting which is not part of the current iteration of the award issued by the Labor Commissioner. 

Petitioner shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  June 20, 2024                                                         ___________________________

                                                                                    Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court