Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CLAR PRODUCTIONS v. ISRAM MOTION PICTURES PROD. SE

January 4, 1982

CLAR PRODUCTIONS, LIMITED, Plaintiff,
v.
ISRAM MOTION PICTURES PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., a/k/a Isram Film Corp., Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: POLLACK

DECISION

Defendant has moved before answer herein, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. ยง 3 (1976), for a stay of the action pending arbitration. The motion is opposed on the grounds that the arbitration agreement, although drafted identically by both parties was not signed and if it exists, it was waived by defendant's participation in this litigation.

 This suit originally assigned to Judge Pierce, formerly in the District Court, arises out of a dispute over the rights of defendant to distribute plaintiff's film, Tristan and Isolt, outside of the United States.

 The chronology of the prior proceedings is important:

 
April 14, 1981 -Complaint filed.
 
June 18, 1981 -Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging failure to join indispensable parties, and also requested an order staying the action pending discovery on the issue of plaintiff's place of business. This motion was referred to Magistrate Buchwald.
 
August 20, 1981 -Magistrate Buchwald issued a Report recommending denial of the motion to dismiss the complaint.
 
October 6, 1981 -Judge Pierce referred the motion back to the Magistrate in light of defendant's objections to the Report.
 
October 27, 1981 -Judge Pierce issued an order adopting the Magistrate's second Report, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss. Discovery was ordered to take place starting November 16.
 
November 3, 1981 -Temporary restraining order issued by Judge Pierce against any further distribution of the film by defendant.
 
November 13, 1981 -Defendant informed Judge Pierce by letter that it agreed to consent to the entry of a preliminary injunction against it, but stated that its "consent to the entry of the preliminary injunction and its consent to compliance with the discovery order entered by Magistrate Buchwald ... are actions undertaken with full reservation of right to seek an order compelling arbitration."
 
Week of November 16, 1981 -Three days of depositions of defendant's president, along with production of documents by defendant.
 
November 20, 1981 -Entry of consent order for preliminary injunction against further distribution ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.