Water drift universal stuiods
#Water drift universal stuiods movie#
They entered into no written contract regarding the fifth movie in the franchise, Fast Five (Universal Pictures 2011). Specifically, that Moritz and Universal entered into separate contracts for the first, second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh movies in the franchise: The Fast and the Furious (Universal Pictures 2001), 2 Fast 2 Furious (Universal Pictures 2003), The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (Universal Pictures 2006), Fast & Furious (Universal Pictures 2009), Fast & Furious 6 (Universal Pictures 2013), and Furious 7 (Universal Pictures 2015) (respectively, the FF1 contract, FF2 contract, FF3 contract, FF4 contract, FF6 contract, and FF7 contract). The Parties’ Producer Contracts Regarding the Fast & Furious Franchise It is undisputed that Moritz and Universal entered into seven written producer contracts setting forth the terms under which 2 Moritz rendered services as a producer on the films in the Fast & Furious franchise, and that all these contracts (collectively, the Fast & Furious contracts) remain valid and binding. Appellants contend the court erred by deciding whether the Hobbs & Shaw dispute was arbitrable under the arbitration agreements contained in the Fast & Furious contracts, as those agreements are valid and binding on all parties and delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
The court concluded that these arbitration agreements did not apply to the Hobbs & Shaw dispute, and denied appellants’ motion. Appellants moved to compel arbitration of the suit based on arbitration agreements in written producer contracts regarding Moritz’s work for Universal on the Fast & Furious franchise.
Moritz named Universal, as well as appellant Jimmy Horowitz, president of Universal City Studios LLC (collectively, appellants) as defendants in the suit. The lawsuit underlying this appeal involves a “spin-off” of the Fast & Furious franchise, a project ultimately released as Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (Universal Pictures 2019) (Hobbs & Shaw), on which Moritz allegedly worked as a producer pursuant to an oral agreement with Universal. (collectively, Moritz) worked for appellants, Universal City Studios LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, FFSO Productions LLC (collectively, Universal), rendering services as a producer for the film The Fast and the Furious (Universal Pictures 2001) and several sequels thereto (collectively, the Fast & Furious franchise). Over the course of approximately 16 years, respondents Neal Moritz and Neal H. Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert, Dale F. Alex Bergjans for Defendants and Appellants. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Bruce E. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig D. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC et al., Defendants and Appellants.
In this case, appellants' argument that an arbitration provision creates a perpetual obligation to arbitrate any conceivable claim that Moritz might ever have against them is plainly inconsistent with the FAA's explicit relatedness requirement.įiled 9/2/20 CERIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE NEAL MORITZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, B299083 (Los Angeles County Super. The court explained that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires no enforcement of an arbitration provision with respect to disputes unrelated to the contract in which the provision appears. The court stated that not only is it not clear and unmistakable here that the parties agreed to delegate arbitrability questions concerning Hobbs & Shaw to an arbitrator, no reasonable person in their position would have understood the arbitration provisions in the Fast & Furious contracts to require arbitration of any future claim of whatever nature or type, no matter how unrelated to the agreements nor how distant in the future the claim arose.
#Water drift universal stuiods trial#
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of appellants' motion to arbitrate, holding that the arbitration agreements from the Fast & Furious movies did not apply to the Hobbs & Shaw spin-off dispute. After Moritz filed suit for breach of a binding oral agreement regarding Moritz's work on the film, appellants moved to compel arbitration based on arbitration agreements in the written producer contracts regarding Moritz's work for Universal on the Fast & Furious franchise. The lawsuit underlying this appeal involves a "spin-off" of the Fast & Furious franchise, a project ultimately released as Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (the film), on which Moritz allegedly worked as a producer pursuant to an oral agreement with Universal.