Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCP02225, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP02225 Hearing Date: September 24, 2024 Dept: 50
|
RAFAEL NIEVES, Petitioner, vs. WASSERMAN MEDIA GROUP LLC, Respondent. |
Case No.: |
23STCP02225 |
|
Hearing Date: |
September 24, 2024 |
|
|
Hearing
Time: 10:00 a.m. [TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: RAFAEL NIEVES’S
FIRST AMENDED PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD; RESPONDENT
WASSERMAN MEDIA GROUP, LLC’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD |
||
Background
On June 23, 2023, Petitioner Rafael Nieves
(“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to Vacate Contractual Arbitration Award in this
action against Respondent Wasserman Media Group LLC.
On April 8, 2024, Petitioner filed a First Amended
Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. Petitioner seeks “an Order from the Court
vacating the Arbitration Award rendered by Joshua M. Javits on May 8, 2023,
modified on May 23, 2023, and thereafter modified again on February 3, 2024
concerning Mr. Nieves and Respondent, Wasserman Media Group LLC…”[1]
Respondent Wasserman Media Group, LLC (“Respondent”) opposes Petitioner’s petition
to vacate arbitration award.
In addition, Respondent moves for the Court
“to confirm, and enter as the Judgment of the Court, the Arbitration Award issued against [Petitioner], dated May 8,
2023, May 23, 2023, and February 3, 2024…in the Mandatory Arbitration
Proceeding of the Major League Baseball Players Association…
before Arbitrator Joshua M. Javits.” Petitioner
opposes.
Petitioner’s First
Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award
A.
Procedural Issues
As an initial matter, Petitioner’s moving and reply papers in support of
the First Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award contain a number of
redactions. Respondent’s opposition papers also contain a number of redactions.
It does not appear that either party filed a motion to seal the redacted
portions of their respective filings. Pursuant to California Rules of Court,
rule 2.551, subdivision (a), “[a] record
must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a
record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of
the parties.” In addition, “[a] party
requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an
application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be
accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to
justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551,
subd. (b)(2).)
In addition, the Court notes that on May 7, 2024, Department 19 of this
Court issued a minute order in this action providing, inter alia, that “under
California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, the Court
GRANTS Respondent’s Motion to Seal the Award, the Employment Agreement, and the
appliable portions of the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed on
2/21/2024, and the First Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, filed on
4/08/2024. In the future, if there are any additional pleadings that cite or quote
the Award or Employment Agreement that must be sealed for the same reasons
stated above under California Rules of Court, rule
2.550, a separate application or stipulation to seal must be filed, and the
documents that are sought to be sealed must be lodged with the Court so that
the record is complete.”[2]
(May 7, 2024 Minute Order, p. 4.) Petitioner does not appear to cite any order
authorizing Petitioner to file under seal portions of the moving and reply
papers in support of Petitioner’s First Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award.
In addition, Respondent does not appear to cite any order authorizing Respondent
to file under seal portions of Respondent’s opposition to Petitioner’s petition
to vacate arbitration award.
In light of the foregoing, the Court continues the hearing on Petitioner’s
First Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, as discussed below.
Respondent’s Motion to
Confirm Arbitration Award
As an initial matter, Respondent’s moving and reply papers in support of
Respondent’s motion to confirm arbitration award contain a number of
redactions. Petitioner’s opposition also contains a number of redactions. It
does not appear that either party filed a motion to seal the redacted portions
of their respective filings. As discussed, pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 2.551, subdivision (a), “[a]
record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not
permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation
of the parties.” In addition, “[a] party
requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an
application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be
accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to
justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551,
subd. (b)(2).)
As noted above, on May 7, 2024, Department 19 of this Court issued a
minute order in this action providing, inter alia, that “under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, the Court GRANTS
Respondent’s Motion to Seal the Award, the Employment Agreement, and the
appliable portions of the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed on
2/21/2024, and the First Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, filed on
4/08/2024. In the future, if there are any additional pleadings that cite or
quote the Award or Employment Agreement that must be sealed for the same
reasons stated above under California Rules of Court,
rule 2.550, a separate application or stipulation to seal must be filed,
and the documents that are sought to be sealed must be lodged with the Court so
that the record is complete.” (May 7, 2024 Minute Order, p. 4.)
Respondent does not appear to cite any order authorizing Respondent to
file under seal portions of the moving and reply papers in support of Respondent’s
motion to confirm arbitration award. In addition, Petitioner does not appear to
cite any order authorizing Petitioner to file under seal portions of Petitioner’s
opposition to Respondent’s motion to confirm arbitration award.
In light of the foregoing, the Court continues the hearing on Respondent’s
motion to confirm arbitration award, as discussed below.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the hearings on Petitioner’s
First Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and Respondent’s motion to
confirm arbitration award are continued to ____________, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept.
50. If Petitioner and/or Respondent seek to seal their respective filings, they
must immediately file a motion or application to seal pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 et seq.¿If
Petitioner and/or Respondent do not seek to seal their respective filings, Petitioner
and/or Respondent must immediately file with the Court unredacted versions of their
filings.
Petitioner is ordered to give notice of
this Order.
DATED:
________________________________
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court
[1]On
July 5, 2024, the Court issued a minute order providing, inter alia,
that “Hearing on…Petitioner’s First Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration
Award is scheduled for 09/24/24…”
[2]In addition, on
May 7, 2024, Department 19 of this Court issued an Order providing, inter
alia, that “[t]he Award, Employment Agreement, and all applicable portions
of the Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed on 2/21/2024, and the First
Amended Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award, filed on 4/08/2024, that cite or
quote the Award or the Employment Agreement, are hereby sealed...”