United States District Court, S.D. New York
June 1, 2005.
ROBERT LEWIS ROSEN ASSOCIATES, LTD., Plaintiff,
WILLIAM WEBB, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Lewis Rosen Associates, Ltd. ("RLR") seeks an
Order from this Court allowing the entry of a money judgment,
pursuant to this Court's previous Opinion and Order dated
November 24, 2003, and subsequent Judgment dated November 26,
2003. The motion is Granted.
RLR is a New York corporation that manages individuals'
entertainment careers. William Webb ("Webb") used RLR's services
as a personal manager, representative and advisor for his career
as a television sports director until the relationship soured and
RLR initiated arbitration before the American Arbitration
Association. On July 31, 2003, an Award was rendered in RLR's
favor and on November 24, 2003, this Court issued an Opinion and
Order ("Opinion") that confirmed the Award in its entirety.
The Arbitration Award provided, inter alia, that;
1. Respondent William Webb shall pay Claimant RLR the
sum of Three Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Eighty-Four
Dollars and Thirty-Two Cents ($355,084.32), which
reflects amounts due Claimant as of May 31, 2003.
This sum includes manager's fees due, the costs of
this arbitration including fees of the American
Arbitration Association and the Arbitrator's
compensation, attorneys' fees and other related costs. Payments shall be rendered forthwith but in no
event later than thirty days after Webb's receipt of
2. Additional payments due Claimant RLR pursuant to
the 2000 Fox Renewal, the 2001 MSG Renewal and the
2005 and 2006 Fox Renewal shall be made within thirty
days after William Webb's receipt of these payments.
3. Interest at the rate of six per cent (6%) per
annum shall accrue after payments are due in
accordance with Paragraphs (1) and (2) above. Robert
Lewis Rosen Assoc., Ltd. v. William Webb, 2003 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 21317 at *9-10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2003).
On November 26, 2003, this Court entered a separate Judgment
that provided as per the Court's Opinion, "petitioner's motion to
confirm the arbitration award is granted, the award of
$355,084.32 with interest of 6% per annum is confirmed . . .
[and] respondent's motion to vacate the award or in the
alternative, for a stay is denied. . . ." Nov. 26, 2003 Judgment,
Dckt. #23. The Judgment was silent with regard to "Additional
payments" that may become due in the future, e.g., the 2000 Fox
Renewal, the 2001 MSG Renewal and the 2005 and 2006 Fox Renewal.
Each of which represents an unmatured renewal and each of which
was included in the Arbitration Award and were reflected in this
Court's Opinion that confirmed that Award. Robert Lewis Rosen,
2003 WL 22801698 at *9. The first Judgment did not set out the
renewals since it was unknown as to whether those renewals would
ever mature. The question then is whether (a) a new judgment must
be fashioned and (b) is it too late.
On February 4, 2005, RLR petitioned this Court to enter an
additional judgment against William Webb with respect to these
"Additional payments" which became due pursuant to the award
within 30 days of payment following the networks' decision to
renew Webb's contracts. Webb argues that because these payments
were not spelled out in the November 26, 2003 Judgment, the money
is now uncollectable. After oral argument and consideration of
all the materials provided to the Court, I conclude that the
Court having confirmed the Arbitration Award in its entirety, the
"Additional payments" in the Arbitration Award were included and
are now due and owing and RLR is entitled to such relief as was
provided in the Award.*fn1 II. DISCUSSION
Webb argues that the November 26, 2003 Judgment represents the
final and complete award due to RLR and as such RLR cannot now
collect commissions on the renewals. Because the Judgment does
not explicitly provide for the "Additional payments," Webb argues
RLR should have amended the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) and
the time to do so has long since passed. Creative perhaps but
unavailing. This relief is not an increase in the Judgment
because it was already awarded when the Court confirmed the
entire Arbitration Award in its Opinion in November 2003. As
such, Rule 59(e) plays no role in my decision on this issue. So a
new judgment is not necessary and the renewals having only now
become due, this application is not too late.
This is a somewhat novel issue because the rationale underlying
Rule 59(e) has not been applied to confirmation of arbitration
awards and subsequent judgments to clarify those awards.
When an arbitration award is confirmed, unless the court
specifies otherwise, it includes the entire award. Barbier v.
Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 151, 158 (S.D.N.Y.
1990), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 948 F.2d 117 (2d Cir.
1991) (citing Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz, 750 F.2d 171, 176
(2d Cir. 1984)) (confirmation of an arbitration award is "a
summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final
arbitration award a judgment of the court."). A judgment that
confirms an arbitration award "should reflect what would have
happened had the parties immediately complied with the awards
instead of going to court." Americas Ins. Co. v. Seagull
Compania Naviera, S.A., 774 F.2d 64, 67 (2d Cir. 1985) citing
Marion Mfg. Co. v. Long, 588 F2d. 538, 541 (6th Cir. 1978).
If an arbitration award is upheld in a reviewing court, the
rights of the parties are determined from the date of the award
and not the date of the court's judgment confirming the award.
Marion Mfg., 588 F2d. at 541. Any other result would defeat the
purpose of arbitration which is to finally decide the issues
between the arbitrating parties without judicial intervention. As
such, when this Court confirmed the Arbitration Award, it
confirmed the entire Award, which necessarily includes the future
contract renewal payments. Section 13 of the FAA provides that a judgment confirming an
award, once entered, has the same force and effect as a judgment
in a standard civil action and is "subject to all provisions of
law" relating to judgments. 9 U.S.C. § 13. Webb argues that
because the Judgment provided a specific sum and did not include
language about the additional payments due to contract renewal,
it was not intended to be part of the final Judgment and cannot
later be changed. The relevant part of the November 2003 Judgment
states that "petitioner's motion to confirm the arbitration award
is granted, the award of $355,084.32 with interest of 6% per
annum is confirmed . . . [and] respondent's motion to vacate the
award or in the alternative, for a stay is denied. . . ."
Notwithstanding the fact that the previous clause reiterates the
Court's intention to confirm the Award, Webb has chosen to read
ambiguity into the Judgment and contends that no additional
payments can ever be due because no further monies are detailed.
But because Arbitration Awards are confirmed in their entirety or
specifically changed or vacated, and in this case the Court
expressly denied Defendant's motion to vacate, any arguments
about ambiguity or the effects of final judgment are unavailing.
For the above stated reasons RLR is entitled to judgment
against William Webb in the additional sum of one hundred and six
thousand, four hundred forty one dollars and seventy two cents
($106,441.72) in satisfaction of the monies owed per the
Arbitration Award as a result of the 2000 Fox Renewal, the 2001
MSG Renewal and the 2005 and 2006 Fox Renewal, plus interest at
the rate of six percent 6% per annum beginning 30 days from the
date Webb received the payments. In addition, within 30 days from the date hereof, RLR is
Ordered to provide William Webb with an accounting of all monies
received to date in connection with the Arbitration Award to
determine if there were any overpayment, and such overpayment, if
any, will be offset against the money due. The Clerk of the Court
is instructed to close this motion and any other motions and
remove this case from my docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.