Ferguson v. Writers Guild of America, West, Inc.
91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 566, 277 Cal. Rptr. 450, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1382 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts have a limited scope of judicial review over a private organization's internal arbitration decisions, such as those made by the Writers Guild of America regarding screenwriting credits, examining only whether there was a material breach of established procedures, whether the parties agreed to arbitration, if the objecting party had a fair opportunity to be heard, and if the arbitrators exceeded their powers; furthermore, a litigant must exhaust internal review processes by presenting all procedural defects to the organization's review board before seeking judicial intervention for those issues.
Facts:
- Larry Ferguson, a screenwriter, was engaged by Paramount Pictures Corporation to write a screenplay for the feature-length motion picture “Beverly Hills Cop II.”
- On April 27, 1987, the Writers Guild of America, west, Inc. (Writers Guild) determined the writing credits for the picture as: Screenplay by Larry Ferguson and Warren Skaaren; Story by Eddie Murphy & Robert D. Wachs.
- The process for determining writing credits for theatrical motion pictures is governed by the theatrical and television basic agreement (between producers and Writers Guilds) and the Writers Guild west's credits manual.
- These documents specify that if any writer requests arbitration of credits, the Writers Guild’s arbitration committee must determine the credits, and its decision, if rendered within Schedule A limitations, is final and binding on all writers and the company.
- The Writers Guild's credit arbitration procedure involves three arbitrators, whose identities are kept confidential from each other and the parties, who review script materials and confidential party statements independently.
- Any party may request a policy review board, consisting of three members of the Writers Guild’s credits committee, to review the arbitration for substantial deviations from Guild policy or procedure, but not to reverse judgments on merit.
- Ferguson requested a policy review board, but only raised two specific issues concerning the disqualification of Murphy and Wachs for story credit and Skaaren's contribution to the screenplay being below the minimum for credit.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 15, 1987, Larry Ferguson filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court (trial court/court of first instance) against the Writers Guild, seeking to compel it to set aside its credit determination and award him sole screenplay and story credit.
- The superior court denied Ferguson's petition for a writ of mandate.
- On November 20, 1987, the superior court entered judgment denying Ferguson's petition.
- On December 22, 1987, the superior court denied Ferguson’s motion for reconsideration.
- Ferguson, as the appellant, appealed the superior court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- Three days before oral argument, Ferguson filed a request to dismiss the appeal, which the California Court of Appeal denied.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court have the authority to review the substantive merits of a private organization's (Writers Guild of America) screenwriting credit determination, or is judicial review limited to procedural irregularities, and must a party exhaust internal remedies by presenting all procedural challenges to the organization's policy review board before challenging those procedures in court?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, J.
No, a court does not have the authority to review the substantive merits of the Writers Guild's screenwriting credit determination; judicial review is limited to procedural irregularities, and a party must exhaust internal remedies by presenting all procedural challenges to the policy review board before seeking judicial intervention. The court agreed with the Writers Guild that disputes over writing credits are nonjusticiable, as the professional writers and producers, through Schedule A of the basic agreement and the credits manual, have appropriately decided that the delicate task of credit determination can be handled more skillfully, expeditiously, and economically by experienced Writers Guild arbitration committees than by courts. The finality provisions of these agreements signify an intent for credit disputes to be resolved without expensive litigation. The scope of judicial review is therefore limited to determining whether there has been a material breach of the credits manual, consistent with review of traditional arbitrations where courts examine if parties agreed to arbitrate, if the objecting party had a fair opportunity to be heard, and if arbitrators exceeded their powers. The court gives considerable deference to the policy review board's decisions due to its expertise. Furthermore, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires a litigant to present all procedural defects to the private organization's internal review process before pursuing judicial remedies. Ferguson failed to preserve most of his seven claims of procedural irregularities for judicial review because he did not demonstrate that he presented them to the Writers Guild’s policy review board. Even if considered on their merits, the court found his procedural contentions unsubstantiated. The court also rejected Ferguson’s request to discover the arbitrators' identities, affirming the Guild's practice of confidentiality as legitimate and necessary to free arbitrators from pressure, retaliation, and litigation, noting that a losing party cannot inquire into arbitrators' thought processes.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle of limited judicial review over private, internal arbitration processes, particularly in specialized industries like entertainment. It emphasizes the importance of exhausting all available internal administrative remedies before seeking relief in the courts, establishing that failure to do so waives the right to judicial review of unraised issues. The ruling also underscores the confidentiality of arbitrators' identities in certain contexts, affirming that protecting arbitrators from external pressures is a legitimate consideration. This case serves as a strong precedent for deferring to industry-specific dispute resolution mechanisms agreed upon by parties, limiting courts to procedural oversight rather than substantive re-evaluation of expert decisions.
