Unity Pictures v. Universal City Stud

Filed 7/5/06 Unity Pictures v. Universal City Studios CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joanne O'Donnell, Judge. Dismissed; sanctions imposed.

Michael R. Blaha for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Katten Muchin Rosenman, Gail Migdal Title, Joel R. Weiner, and Evan D. Dwin for Defendants and Respondents.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Unity Pictures Corporation, appealed from a judgment dismissing its rescission, fraud and declaratory relief action after the superior court sustained the demurrer of defendants, Universal City Studios, Inc. (Universal) and Mark Wooster, to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. After we gave notice that we were considering granting defendants' monetary sanctions request, plaintiff filed a dismissal request. We then asked the parties to address the issue of costs on appeal and plaintiff's monetary sanctions request. Defendants argued that they were still entitled to monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff's dismissal motion is granted. Also, we grant defendants' monetary sanctions motion in part and award them their attorney fees incurred on appeal prior to the filing of plaintiffs' dismissal request. It has been repeatedly held--by the arbitrator, the trial court, and us--that the arbitrator has sole jurisdiction of the fraudulent inducement and rescission claims asserted in this action and that plaintiff's recourse is in the pending arbitration. Plaintiff has alleged insufficient facts to permit the trial court to adjudicate claims covered by the arbitration provisions of the settlement agreement between plaintiff and Universal. Further, Mr. Wooster, a nonsignatory, allegedly acting as Universal's agent, is entitled to the benefit of the arbitration provisions of the settlement agreement under well established authority. Accordingly, plaintiff's contentions to the contrary are frivolous.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and Universal entered into a motion picture distribution agreement on July 7, 1982. Disputes arose under that agreement. On October 14, 1998, plaintiff and Universal entered into an â€