Judge: Timothy Patrick Dillon, Case: 22STCP04153, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP04153 Hearing Date: July 20, 2023 Dept: 73
QUIVER DISTRIBUTION LTD v. JEREMY WALL (22STCP04153)
Counsel for Plaintiff/opposing
party: Pamela Thakur (Thakur Law Firm,
APC)
Counsel for Defendant/moving
party: Jennifer Hughes (Law Office of
Jennifer Hughes)
motion TO
VACTAE/CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
TENTATIVE
RULING
DENY Motion to Vacate Arbitration
Award
GRANT Motion to Confirm Arbitration
Award
Discussion
Background
Respondent, Jeremy Wall (“Wall”),
is a film producer. Following a dispute with respect to a film, Respondent and
Petitioner Quiver Distribution Ltd. (“Quiver”),
2326352 Alberta Ltd (“Alberta”), and Myriad Pictures Inc. (“Myriad”)
entered into a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement provided that any
dispute under the agreement would be resolved by arbitration under the Rules of
the International Arbitration of the Independent Film and Television Alliance (“IFTA”).
The Final Corrected Arbitration Award was signed on November 18, 2022 and
served on January 18, 2023.
On November 21, 2022, Petitioner
Quiver Distribution LTD filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award. On
April 17, 2023, Quiver filed an Amended Petition to Vacate, arguing:
·
The arbitrator exceeded his or her
authority and the award cannot be fairly corrected.
·
The Settlement Agreement under which
the arbitration took place was void because it had a condition for closing of
financing before August 15, 2021. This condition did not occur. As such, there
can be no subsequent breach of the Settlement Agreement as set out in the
Amended Notice of Arbitration. The claims under the Settlement Agreement,
including Claimant’s demand for an LA based IFTA Arbitration must be dismissed.
Thus, IFTA has no jurisdiction to arbitrate the Settlement Agreement in Los
Angeles.
·
The Arbitrator issued a Tentative
Ruling which found that the condition precedent had been waived by the Parties
as the film was produced, and assumed jurisdiction under the Settlement
Agreement. The Arbitrator found that the financing condition as immaterial.
This ruling is wrong and resulted in the Arbitrator exceeding her authority by
unilaterally determining that the Parties waived a fully negotiated unmet
condition.
On January 31, 2023, Jeremy Wall filed
a Response to the Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award, arguing:
·
The Confidential Settlement Agreement
provides for binding arbitration of disputes in Los Angeles with the IFTA.
·
The Petition to Vacate fails to raise
any legitimate grounds for relief by drawing a connection between fact and
controlling law.
·
Even a misinterpretation of
contractual language is within the arbitrator’s powers. Arbitrators do not
exceed their powers because of errors of fact or law.
·
There are procedural deficiencies with
the Petition. The Petition to Vacate was filed three days before the Final
Corrected Arbitration Award was issued. The Petition fails to name as
respondents all parties to the arbitration. The Petition was not served on
Respondent and service on his attorney was not authorized by the agreement.
On January 31, 2023, Wall filed a
Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award, requesting that the court confirm
the award and enter judgment according to it.
·
Wall requests interest at the
statutory rate, costs of suit, and attorney fees. Wall also requests that
Quiver provide written Notice of Delivery of Essential Elements and the
Settlement Agreement
On February 10, 2023, Myriad Pictures,
Inc. filed a Response in Opposition in Part to Jeremy Wall’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration
Award, arguing:
·
Myriad had already materially
performed all aspects of the November 18, 2022 corrected final arbitration
award. Wall cannot establish grounds for an award of fees or costs against Myriad.
Jeremy Wall has confirmed that Myriad has satisfied the payment obligations to
Myriad.
·
Myriad requests that a partial
satisfaction of judgment be entered.
On February 15, 2023, Jeremy Wall
filed a Reply to Myriad Pictures, stating:
·
Wall does not seek costs or attorney
fees against Myriad. However, Jeremy Wall reserves the right to seek attorney’s
fees or costs in event of a future
breach.
·
Wall does not object to executing a
partial satisfaction of judgment once judgment confirming the Award is entered.
A full satisfaction of judgment is not warranted because the Award includes
continuing obligations.
On July 6, 2023, Quiver Distribution
filed an Opposition to Jeremy Wall’s
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, arguing:
·
The arbitrator’s failure to find the
Settlement Agreement nullified by the failure of a condition precedent requires
the Award to be vacated because the arbitrator exceeded her authority. There
were no grounds for the arbitrator to make a finding of jurisdiction, yet she
found jurisdiction based on her erroneous finding that the condition precedent
was waived.
·
The Arbitrator made a mistake of law
by failing to give effect to the plain meaning of the contract and finding a
waiver, when there were no circumstances of a waiver.
·
Quiver cites to Griffith Co. v. San
Diego College for Women which states that an error of law is not reviewable
by the courts. Quiver argues that this case is distinct because the matter was
not admitted properly before the arbitrator as she erred in making a threshold
finding of jurisdiction.
On July 11, 2023, Quiver filed a Reply
to Wall’s
Response to Quiver’s
Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award:
·
There are exceptions to the rule of
finality of an arbitrator’s decision, namely when there is a “mistake of law” or
where the arbitrator “exceeds her authority.” Both grounds exist.
·
Quiver cites to Moncharsh v. Heily
& Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11 to show that arbitration awards can be
vacated when the Award contradicts an “explicit legislative expression of
public policy.” Quiver argues that the Arbitrator exceeded her jurisdiction by
making a finding of jurisdiction predicated on the Settlemetn Agreement between
the parties which had been superseded and nullified by the Co-Production
Agreement and a condition precedent that had not been satisfied.
·
The Arbitrator made a mistake in law
by failing to give effect to the plain meaning of the contract and inferring a
waiver.
·
Wall’s procedural arguments are moot
as Quiver has filed an Amended Petition correcting these errors.
On July 13, 2023, Jeremy Wall filed a
Reply in Support of Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, arguing:
·
Quiver’s Response is untimely.
Additionally, the opposition was only served on Jeremy Wall and Quiver has not
served Alberta.
·
The arbitrator ruled on the threshold
issue of jurisdiction after the parties fully briefed and argued the issues of
jurisdiction and waiver. The arbitrator’s authority to decide jurisdiction was
properly conferred by contract, California law, and IFTA rules.
·
The Settlement Agreement provides for
IFTA arbitration under IFTA Rules. In the context of international arbitration,
California law specifically authorizes the arbitrator to rule on her own
jurisdiction: “The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction,
including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of
the arbitration agreement….” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1297.161.) Additionally, IFTA
Rule 8.3 provides: “The Arbitrator shall rule on his/her own jurisdiction,
including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of
the agreement of the parties to arbitrate; for that purpose, an arbitration
provision which forms part of an agreement or alleged agreement of the parties
shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of such
agreement, so that a decision by the Arbitrator that such agreement is null and
void shall not entail the invalidity of such arbitration provision.”
·
Following briefing and oral argument
by the parties on the issue of waiver of the condition precedent, the
arbitrator held: “Accordingly, the Arbitrator's prior Order that the condition
precedent was waived and that the Settlement Agreement is still in effect and
is the operative agreement, stands. This also establishes the jurisdiction of
IFTA Arbitration in California over the proceedings under the Settlement
Agreement.” [Interim Award pp.
5:26-27-6:1-2]
·
The ruling on waiver of condition
precedent was supported by “clear and convincing evidence.” [Interim Award, p.
4:11-13.] The arbitrator found that: (1) When the condition precedent “failed,”
none of the parties reverted to the Co-Production Agreement (Id. at p.
4:15-24); (2) at the time the Settlement Agreement was signed, a Producer
Agreement with Petitioner was executed by the parties which limited his rights
and which also provided in the event of a conflict of terms, the terms of the
Settlement Agreement prevailed (Id. at p. 4:24-5:3); (3) Alberta, the
only Respondent who signed the Co-Production Agreement, sent notice of
termination of the Co-Production Agreement to Petitioner on June 21, 2021, more
than a month before the condition precedent failed (Id. at p. 5:3-7); (4)
financing by the Banc of California as opposed to another financer was not a
material term (Id. at p.5:7-25); (5) Respondents could have closed
financing with Banc of California but instead intentionally chose not to (Id.
at p. 16:19-21).
ANALYSIS
A. Legal
Standard for Motions to Vacate/Confirm Arbitration Awards
“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.) 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; (b)
Set forth the names of the arbitrator; and (c) Set forth or have attached a
copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code
Civ. Proc. § 1285.4.) “If a petition or response under this chapter
is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether
rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter
it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or
dismisses the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.)
An award may not be vacated or
corrected unless a petition for either form of relief has been duly served and
filed and all parties are before the court. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1286.4,
1286.8.) Generally, service of a motion and its notice must be made either on
an individual person or by mail. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1011, 1012.) While
parties may serve certain documents by electronic service, electronic service
of a document is authorized if a party or other person has expressly consented
to receive electronic service in that specific action, or the court has ordered
electronic service on a represented party, etc. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii).)
In addition, “[a] party represented by counsel, who has
appeared in an action or proceeding, shall accept electronic service of a
notice or document that may be served by mail, express mail, overnight
delivery, or facsimile transmission.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6(e)(1).)
“The burden is on the party attacking
the [arbitration] award to affirmatively establish the existence of error by a
proper record.¿[Citation.] The arbitrator's findings on issues of both law and
fact are conclusive.¿[Citation.]” (Lopes v. Millsap¿(1992) 6 Cal.App.4th
1679, 1685.) Vacation of an arbitration award is limited under Code of Civil
Procedure section 1286.2 to the statutory grounds. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2(a).)¿
Per Civil Procedure Code section
1286.2(a) the court shall vacate an arbitration award if it determines any of
the following:¿¿
1)
the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means;¿
2)
the arbitrator was corrupt;¿
3)
the arbitrator's misconduct substantially prejudiced a party's rights;¿
4)
the arbitrator exceeded his power and the award cannot be corrected without
affecting the merits of the decision;¿
5)
the arbitrator refused to hear material evidence, to postpone the hearing, or
acted contrary to the provisions of the code concerning arbitration;¿
6)
the arbitrator was subject to disqualification but did not disqualify himself.¿
This statute provides the exclusive
grounds upon which a court may review private arbitration awards. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
(1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 26-28.)¿ A court may not set aside an arbitration award
even if the arbitrator made an error of law because the parties have agreed to
bear the risk of an erroneous decision in return for a quick, inexpensive, and
conclusive resolution to their dispute.¿ (Schlessinger v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman
(1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 1096, 1109; Moncharsh, supra, Cal.4th at 11-12.)¿ Courts
may not review the merits of the controversy, the validity of the arbitrator's
reasoning, or the sufficiency of the evidence. (Jordan v. Department of
Motor Vehicles (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 431, 443.)¿ An arbitrator's
decision is not generally reviewable for errors of fact or law, even if the
error appears on the face of the award and causes substantial injustice. (Id.)
This ensures that the arbitrator’s
decision is the end, not the beginning, of the dispute. (Id.)¿
B. Request
for Judicial Notice
Quiver requests that the court take
judicial notice of the following: (A) Corrected Final Arbitration Award; (B)
Interim Arbitration Award; (C) Final Arbitration Award; (D) Co-Production
Agreement; and (E) Settlement Agreement.
The court grants the request to take
judicial notice of Exhibits A, B, and C pursuant to Evidence Code section
452(d). However, the court denies the request for judicial notice for Exhibits
D and E as the Co-Production Agreement and Settlement Agreement are not records
of a court.
C. Evidentiary
Objections
Myriad’s evidentiary objections to the Wall
Declaration are overruled.
Myriad’s evidentiary objections to the Hughes
Declaration are overruled.
D. Procedural
Concerns
1.
Quiver’s Failure to Name All Parties
Jeremy Wall argues that Quiver’s
failure to serve party, 2326352 Alberta Ltd. is detrimental to Quiver’s motion. “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.) Quiver’s
initial Petition only named Jeremy Wall. However, Petitioner then stipulated to
Quiver filing an Amended Petition to Vacate naming all Respondents and agreed
to a continuance of the deadline to serve of 30 days to take reasonable steps
to serve Alberta. The court set a hearing for three months out to allow for
service of Alberta. (04/23/23 Minute Order.)
Quiver filed a First Amended Petition
naming Alberta as a party; however, Quiver has still not filed proof of service
on Alberta.
However, Jeremy Wall has filed Proof
of Service of the Petition on Alberta. Alberta has not filed any responsive
papers to either Petition.
2.
Untimeliness of Quiver’s Opposition to
Motion to Confirm
Wall argues that
Quiver’s opposition to the
motion to confirm is untimely. Wall argues that Quiver should have served its
response within 10 days of service of the Motion to Confirm. However, the case
cited by Wall states: “a party seeking to
vacate an arbitration award must either (1) file and serve a petition to vacate
that award “not later than 100
days after the date of the service of a signed copy of the award [citation], or
(2) file and serve a timely response (that is, within 10 days) to the other
party’s petition to confirm
the award, which seeks to vacate the award.” (Santa Monica College Faculty Assn. v.
Santa Monica Community College (2015) 243
Cal.App.4th 538, 544.)
Here, Quiver
initiated this action when it filed its Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award
on November 21, 2022. Wall then filed a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award in
the same action. Thus, here Quiver was not required to file a response moving
to vacate the award within 10 days of service of Wall’s Motion to Confirm
because Quiver had already filed a Petition to vacate that award before the
Motion to Confirm.
Myriad also objects
to Quiver’s untimely filing of
the opposition and Jeremy Wall’s untimely filing of
the Reply and all corresponding papers filed with these motions after July 6,
2023. Myriad requests the court to sua
sponte strike all these untimely filed pleadings. The court declines to strike
these pleadings and proceeds to consider the papers on their merits. The
initial Petition to Vacate was filed on November 21, 2022 by Quiver. A response
was filed on January 30, 2023 by Jeremy Wall. On January 31, 2023, Jeremy Wall
filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. These Petitions were timely
filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1288.
As to the other
filings, the Stipulation between Quiver and Wall, which the court granted,
states that the Opposition and Replies shall be continued out to the new
hearing date. Thus, the court considers the opposition and reply papers.
3.
Untimeliness of Quiver’s Motion to
Vacate
Wall argues that
Quiver’s Motion to Vacate
was untimely because Quiver filed the Motion to Vacate prior to the service of
the Final Corrected Arbitration Award. Wall objects stating that Quiver’s Motion did not take into account the Final Corrected
Arbitration Award.
A petition to vacate
an award shall be filed no later than 100 days after the date of the service of
a signed copy of the award. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1288.) No petition may be served
and filed until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the award.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1288.4.)
The Arbitrator issued
a document entitled “Final Arbitration Award”
dated 10/26/2022, and, after receipt of comments, she issued the Final
Corrected Arbitration Award, which was signed on 11/18/2022 and served on
01/18/2023 via email followed by a mailed hard copy form. Quiver filed his
initial Petition to Vacate on November 21, 2022.
However, on April 17,
2023, Quiver filed an Amended Petition to Vacate that incorporates the Final
Corrected Arbitration Award. As the Final Corrected Arbitration Award was signed
on November 18, 2022, and Wall was able to file a response to Quiver’s Motion to Vacate, the court proceeds to consider the
merits.
E.
Motion to
Vacate/Confirm Arbitration
1.
Motion to Vacate
Quiver moves to vacate the arbitration
award on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded her authority and made a
mistake in law about whether the condition precedent in the Settlement
Agreement was waived. Quiver argues that the ground for vacating the award is
that “the arbitrator exceeded his or her
power and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the
decision.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1286.2(a)(4).)
Quiver argues that the Settlement
Agreement under which the arbitration took place was void because it had a
condition precedent that was not satisfied. The Settlement Agreement stated
that: “Closing of financing for the
production costs of the Film with Banc of California on or before August 15,
2021… shall be a condition of this Agreement and in the event such financing
and closing does not occur, this Agreement shall be null and void.” (Petition
to Vacate, Attachment 4(b)(2), ¶ 2.1.) Quiver argues that this condition did
not occur so the Settlement Agreement was voided. As such, there was no
subsequent breach of the Settlement Agreement and the IFTA had no jurisdiction
to arbitrate the Settlement Agreement in Los Angeles.
This issue was presented to the
Arbitrator who held two hearings and allowed the parties to present evidence.
The Arbitrator issued a Tentative Ruling which found that the condition
precedent had been waived by the Parties as the film was produced, and assumed
jurisdiction under the Settlement Agreement. Quiver argues that “[t]he
Tentative Ruling is wrong at law and has resulted in the Arbitrator exceeding
her authority by unilaterally determining that the Parties waived a fully
negotiated unmet condition.”
The trial court is authorized to
vacate an arbitrator’s
determination that he or she has the jurisdiction to resolve an issue when this
issue is outside the scope of an arbitration agreement or the statutes
permitting or requiring arbitration. (Glassman v. McNab (2003) 112
Cal.App.4th 1593, 1598.) Further, in determining whether arbitrators
have exceeded their powers, a court must give “substantial
deference to the arbitrators' own assessments of their contractual
authority....” (Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 373.)
Here,
the Settlement Agreement provides for binding arbitration by the IFTA for
disputes arising out of this Agreement. (Petition to Vacate, Attachment
4(b)(2), ¶ 5.) The arbitrator ruled on the threshold issue of jurisdiction
after the parties fully briefed and argued the issues of jurisdiction and waiver.
In the context of international arbitration, California law specifically
authorizes the arbitrator to rule on her own jurisdiction: “The
arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any
objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration
agreement….” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1297.161.) Additionally, IFTA Rule 8.3
provides: “The Arbitrator shall rule on his/her
own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the
existence or validity of the agreement of the parties to arbitrate.” (Hughes
Decl. Ex. B.)
Therefore,
the Arbitrator had the authority under California law and the IFTA to rule on
the arbitration court’s
jurisdiction. Notably, Quiver does not argue that California law or the IFTA did
not allow the Arbitrator to rule on the court’s jurisdiction.
The Arbitrator did rule on the court’s jurisdiction, stating in the Interim
Ruling: “Accordingly, the Arbitrator's prior
Order that the condition precedent was waived and that the Settlement Agreement
is still in effect and is the operative agreement, stands. This also
establishes the jurisdiction of IFTA Arbitration in California over the
proceedings under the Settlement Agreement.”
(Petition to Vacate, Attachment 8(c), Interim Award pp. 5:26-27-6:1-2.)
This ruling on the waiver of the condition precedent was supported by “clear
and convincing evidence.” (Id., p. 4:11-5:25.)
Although Quiver argues that this ruling is “wrong
at law and has resulted in the Arbitrator exceeding her authority by
unilaterally determining that the Parties waived a fully negotiated condition,”
Quiver does not explain how this ruling is wrong at law and fails to explain
how this decision was “unilaterally determined” when both
parties were able to present evidence at hearings before the decision was
issued. Quiver cites to no authority to show how this type of error can result
in an arbitration award being vacated.
Further, and importantly, the “merits
of the controversy between the parties are not subject to judicial review” and
a court “will not review the validity of the
arbitrator’s
reasoning,” or “the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting an arbitrator’s
award.” (Moncharsh v.
Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11.) The general
rule is that, with narrow exceptions, an arbitrator’s decision cannot be reviewed for
errors of fact or law. (Id.) This risk of error is acceptable because
the parties have agreed to bear that risk in return for quick, inexpensive, and
conclusive resolution to their disputes and because the Legislature has reduced
the risk to provide for judicial review in serious problems with the award
itself, or with the fairness of the arbitration process in Code of Civil
Procedure section 1286.2. (Id. at 11-12.)
Thus, the court does not have the power to review the
validity of the arbitrator’s
reasoning and the law applied to determine that the condition of the Settlement
Agreement was waived by the parties.
In reply, Quiver attempts to argue that the court acted in
violation of public policy. “An arbitrator exceeds his or her
powers if the arbitration award violates a statutory right or otherwise
violates a well-defined public policy.” (Department of Personnel Admin.
v. California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th
1193, 1195.) Quiver cites to Moncharsh v.
Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11 to show that
arbitration awards can be vacated when the Award contradicts an explicit
legislative expression of public policy. Quiver argues that public policy was
violated when the Arbitrator exceeded her jurisdiction by making a finding of
jurisdiction predicated on the Settlement
Agreement. However, Quiver does not cite to an explicit legislative
expression of public policy that was allegedly violated by the Award, such as
illegality in the arbitration contract. (See Moncharsh, supra, 3 Cal.4th
1, 32 [“Without an explicit legislative
expression of public policy, however, courts should be reluctant to invalidate
an arbitrator's award on this ground”].)
Thus, Quiver’s Motion to Vacate the Arbitration
Award is DENIED.
2.
Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award
Petitioner has satisfied Code of Civil
Procedure section by filing proofs of service demonstrating service on Quiver,
Alberta, and Myriad, showing service by mail and electronic mail. Additionally,
Petitioner filed this Petition to Confirm on January 31, 2023. The copy of the
award was served on January 18, 2023. This is timely filed pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 1288.
An arbitration award is not directly
enforceable until it is confirmed by a court and judgment is entered. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 1287.6; Jones v. Kvistad
(1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, 840.) The court must confirm the award as made,
unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility,
Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818. Code of Civil Procedure, section
1285.4 states a petition under this chapter shall: 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; Set forth the names of the
arbitrator; Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written
opinion of the arbitrator, if any. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.)
Here, the Petition attaches a copy of
the agreement to arbitrate (Attachment 4(b)), sets forth the name of the
Arbitrator (Anat Levy, Esq.) and attaches a copy of the Corrected Final
Arbitration Award to the Petition (Attachment 8(c)). Petitioner has
complied with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285.4,
subdivision (a).
In response, Quiver makes the same
arguments as the Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award and corresponding
reply. Thus, these arguments do not change the court’s analysis of whether to confirm the
award as the court declines to vacate the arbitration award.
Myriad Pictures, Inc. filed a response
opposing the Petition to Confirm in part, stating that Myriad had already
materially performed all aspects of the November 18, 2022 corrected final
arbitration award, and that Wall cannot establish grounds for an award of fees
or costs against Myriad. In reply, Wall confirms that Myriad has satisfied the
payment obligations and clarifies that he does not seek costs or attorney fees
against Myriad at the present time. Thus, no attorney fees or costs for
bringing the present Petition will be awarded against Myriad.
Myriad requests that a partial
satisfaction of judgment be entered. Wall does not object to executing a
partial satisfaction of judgment once judgment confirming the Award is entered.
F.
Conclusion
As Wall has fulfilled the procedural
requirements and the court declines to vacate the Award, the court must confirm
the award as made. The court GRANTS Jeremy Wall’s Petition to Confirm the Arbitration
Award.
The court will enter judgment for
Jeremy Wall, and against Alberta in the amount of $65,000. (Interim Award, §V: Award of Damages ¶ 1.) The court
will enter judgment for Jeremy Wall and against Quiver in the amount of
$25,000. (Interim Award, §V: Award of Damages, ¶ 2.)
Quiver shall pay Wall $17,500 within
ten (10) days of the date and delivery of the essential elements of the Film.
(Interim Award, §V: Award of Damages, ¶ 3.)
Quiver and Alberta shall pay Wall fees
and costs of $228,073.60 jointly and severally. (FCAA 7:13-20).
Interest at the legal rate shall begin
to run on the amounts due on the day after the ordered due dates.
Quiver shall provide Wall with prompt
Notice of Delivery of the essential elements of the Film. (Interim Award, §V:
Award of Damages, ¶ 5.)
Wall shall submit a proposed judgment
within five days.