Vox Entertainment v. Reese CA2/2

Filed 2/5/14 Vox Entertainment v. Reese CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

VOX ENTERTAINMENT, INC., B244812

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC486610) v.

CARTER REESE et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Kevin C. Brazile, Judge. Affirmed.

Gabrielsalomons, LLP, Gary K. Salomons and David S. Mayes for Defendants and Appellants.

A. Liberatore, P.C. and Anthony A. Liberatore; David J. Ozeran for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendants and appellants Carter Reese (Reese), Josh Mele (Mele), Chris Wu (Wu), and Annie McCallister (McCallister) (collectively, appellants) appeal from the trial court’s order denying their petition to arbitrate claims asserted against them by their former employer, Vox Entertainment, Inc. (Vox). Appellants and Vox were signatories to written employment contracts that contained an arbitration provision. Two other defendants in this action, Hatch.IM, LLC (Hatch) and PMC, Inc. (PMC), were not signatories to any arbitration agreement with Vox. Based on Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c),1 the trial court denied appellants’ motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that Hatch and PMC were not signatories to any arbitration agreement with Vox; Vox’s claims against Hatch and PMC arose out of the same transaction or related transactions as the claims against defendants; and proceeding with the arbitration created a risk of conflicting rulings. We affirm the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. BACKGROUND Vox is a marketing and event company that specializes in product and brand launch events, public relations events, red carpet affairs, award shows, and media premiere events. Reese, Wu, and Mele were executive officers at Vox and participated in and controlled the management of Vox. McCallister was a high-ranking managerial employee of Vox. Hatch is a Delaware corporation formed by Reese, Wu, and Mele. PMC is a digital media company and a former client of Vox’s. Appellants each signed an employment agreement with Vox. All of those employment agreements contained an arbitration provision requiring arbitration of any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or related to the agreement, or its validity, enforcement, interpretation, breach, or termination. Reese and Wu also signed separate bonus agreements that imposed additional obligations on them in connection with their employment by Vox. Appellants’ employment agreements and bonus agreements