The Weinstein Company Crow-ing over Distribution Rights, Part II

A preliminary matter likely to be raised in Relativity’s Response, as was raised in Ms. Genis’ letter, is whether the Superior Court of the State of California will entertain a motion for a preliminary injunction despite an arbitration clause in the Contract.  Ms. Genis states that the arbitration clause “sets forth the arbitration forum, rules, and appeal process.”  But without further examination of the terms, we cannot be certain whether the clause is applicable in this situation.  

However, the location of the claim can be a key indicator as to whether a Court will grant a preliminary injunction.  The Ninth Circuit has held that even though a dispute is arbitrable, that does not foreclose the right of preliminary relief pending arbitration if the elements for an injunction are met. (See PMS Distrib. Co. v. Huber & Suhner, A.G., 863 F. 2d 639, (9th Cir. 1988). 

Therefore, the Court may grant a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo if it finds that the elements are met.  From Ms. Genis' letter, the underlying Contract and the possible breaches smacks of a need for full scale arbitration.  As such, TWC desires an injunction to prevent Relativity from causing irrevocable harm to TWC's distribution rights while the matter is sorted out in arbitration.

We will report back when more information becomes available.

 

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.emergencybusinesslitigation.com/admin/trackback/247545
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.