Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Hogans Heroes

Hogans Heroes

|Views: 90|Likes:
Published by Keith Pearson

More info:

Published by: Keith Pearson on Aug 21, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Rysher Entertainment, Inc.;Qualia Capital, LLC; Bing CrosbyProductions, LLC,Plaintiffs,v.Writers Guild of America, West,Inc.; Albert S. Ruddy; Kay Fein,as heir to Bernard Fein,Defendants, ________________________________Writers Guild of America, West,Inc.,Counterclaimant,v.Rysher Entertainment, Inc.;Qualia Capital, LLC; Bing CrosbyProductions,Counterdefendants))))))))))))))))))))))))))))CV 11-9298 SVW(MAN)Order Granting Defendants'Motion to ConfirmArbitration[32], Denying Plaintiffs’Motion to Vacate Arbitration[31]
Case 2:11-cv-09298-SVW-MAN Document 44 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1820
On March 19, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiffs RysherEntertainment, Inc., Qualia Capital, LLC, and Bing Crosby Productions,LLC ("BCP")
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") to arbitrate a claimbroughtby Defendant Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. (“Guild”). (Dkt.24). The arbitration claimsought declaratory relief that Albert Ruddyand Bernard Fein (through Feins heirs), the writers of the pilotscript entitled “The Heroes,” continue to hold “separated rights” inthe television series entitled “Hogans Heroes,” which was derived fromthe pilot. These separated rights include the right to make atheatrical motion picture based on the television series. On July 31,2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration of itsOrder. (Dkt. 30).On March 1, 2013, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of theGuild. (Pearson Decl., Ex. A (“Award”)). The arbitrator held that theGuilds claimwas arbitrable, and granted the Guilds request for adeclaration that Ruddy and Fein possess separated rights in “HogansHeroes.(Id. at 18). On March 18, 2013, the Guild filed a Motion toConfirmthe Arbitration Award, and also seeking attorneys’ fees and anorder requiring Plaintiffs to execute a quitclaimassignment as to therights affected by the Award. (Dkt. 31). On the same day, Plaintiffsfiled a Motion to Vacate the Award. (Dkt. 32). For the reasons below,the Motion to Confirmis GRANTED, and the Motion to Vacate is DENIED.
As the parties are familiar with the underlying facts, the Courtwill not repeat themhere. A more detailed recitation may be foundin the Courts prior Order granting the Writers Guild of America,West, Inc.s Motion to Compel Arbitration. (See Dkt. 24).
BCP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rysher Entertainment, LLC. (FAC5).2
Case 2:11-cv-09298-SVW-MAN Document 44 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:1821
 The parties seek judicial review of an arbitration award pursuantto section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185et seq. (“section 301”). “Section 301 empowers this Court to review anarbitration conducted under the terms of a collective bargainingagreement.Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 986 (9thCir. 2001).“[B]ecause federal labor policy strongly favors the resolution olabor disputes through arbitration, [j]udicial scrutiny of anarbitrator's decision is extremely limited.Matthews v. NatlFootball League Mgmt. Council, 688 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012)(internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has instructedthat “as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applyingthe contract and acting within the scope of his authority,” the fact“that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not sufficeto overturn his decision.United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco,Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987); see also Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel& Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 596 (1960) (the “proper” judicial approachto a labor arbitration award is to “refus[e] . . . to review themerits”).Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit has stated that a federal courts“task is, in essence to review the procedural soundness of the arbitraldecision, not its substantive merit.Hawaii Teamsters & AlliedWorkers Union, Local 996 v. United Parcel Service, 241 F.3d 1177, 1181(9th Cir. 2001). “In cases such as this one which concern theinterpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, courts have nobusiness overruling [the arbitrator] because their interpretation o3
Case 2:11-cv-09298-SVW-MAN Document 44 Filed 07/30/13 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:1822

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->