Lexplug logoLexplug

Jacobs v. CBS Broadcasting

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
291 F.3d 1173 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under California law, a nonjudicial proceeding like an arbitration can only preclude subsequent litigation (collateral estoppel) if it was adjudicatory in nature and provided minimum procedural safeguards, such as sworn testimony, cross-examination, and the right to present evidence.


Facts:

  • Michael Givens wrote a script titled 'Final Edition'.
  • Westwind Releasing Corporation optioned 'Final Edition', with an agreement that any writing credit for Givens would be determined by the Writers’ Guild of America (WGA).
  • CBS Broadcasting, Inc. acquired the rights to 'Final Edition' in an agreement stipulating that if a project was produced 'based upon' the script, William Webb and Mike Jacobs, Jr. would receive co-executive producer credits.
  • CBS later co-produced a television series called 'Early Edition', which shared a similar premise with Givens' script.
  • CBS did not provide writing credit to Givens or production credit to Webb and Jacobs for 'Early Edition'.
  • Givens complained to the WGA, which initiated an informal investigation.
  • The WGA investigation, which involved discussions but not sworn testimony or cross-examination, concluded that Givens was not a 'participating writer' on 'Early Edition' and was not entitled to writing credit.

Procedural Posture:

  • Mike Jacobs, Jr., William Webb, and Westwind Releasing Corporation (Plaintiffs) filed a breach of contract action against CBS Broadcasting, Inc. in Los Angeles County Superior Court (a state trial court).
  • CBS removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
  • A separate, formal WGA arbitration regarding writer Michael Givens' claims was confirmed, and Givens ceased being a party to this litigation.
  • CBS moved for summary judgment against the remaining Plaintiffs.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CBS, ruling that the initial, informal WGA participating-writer determination collaterally estopped Plaintiffs' claims.
  • Plaintiffs (as appellants) filed a timely appeal of the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

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 an informal Writers' Guild of America (WGA) 'participating-writer' determination, which lacks formal adjudicatory procedures, have a preclusive effect (collateral estoppel) on a subsequent breach of contract lawsuit brought by producers seeking credit on the same project?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Graber

No. An informal WGA participating-writer determination does not preclude subsequent litigation because it lacks the procedural safeguards required for collateral estoppel under California law. For a prior proceeding to have a preclusive effect, it must be 'adjudicatory in nature.' The court applies a multi-factor test to determine this, considering whether the proceeding was a judicial-like adversary process, required sworn testimony, allowed for cross-examination, was conducted by an impartial officer, and permitted parties to present evidence. The WGA determination was merely an 'informal investigation' involving 'discussions' rather than a formal hearing. Because it lacked these fundamental procedural safeguards, it cannot bar the Plaintiffs from litigating their separate claim for production credit in a judicial forum.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the minimum requirements for a non-judicial proceeding, like an industry arbitration, to be given preclusive effect in court. It establishes that mere informality and good faith are insufficient; the proceeding must possess core adjudicatory characteristics that ensure fairness. The decision protects a litigant's right to their day in court by setting a high bar for issue preclusion, especially when it is invoked 'nonmutually' by a party who was not bound by the original proceeding. This holding limits the power of informal dispute resolution mechanisms to foreclose future, related lawsuits unless they mimic the procedural rigor of a court.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Jacobs v. CBS Broadcasting (2002) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Jacobs v. CBS Broadcasting