HP Production v. McDonald CA2/4

Filed 8/5/14 HP Production v. McDonald CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

HP PRODUCTION, INC., B252175

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SS023595) v.

DEANNE MCDONALD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Allan J. Goodman, Judge. Affirmed. Lavely & Singer, Martin D. Singer and Allison S. Hart for Plaintiff and Respondent. Deanne McDonald, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. _____________________________

Defendant Deanne McDonald appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitration award. Finding no error, we affirm.

BACKGROUND The parties to this litigation are plaintiff and respondent HP Production, Inc. (HP), 1 and defendant and appellant McDonald. HP is owned by Adam Sandler, and is managed by his brother Scott Sandler, neither of whom is a party to this action. HP employs and pays the individuals who work for Adam Sandler. In 2009, HP employed McDonald to work as a nanny for Adam Sandler’s children. After her employment ended, she raised employment-related claims against HP that were resolved in 2010 pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, HP paid $80,000, of which $48,000 was paid directly to McDonald and $32,000 was paid to her attorneys; in return, McDonald agreed not to disclose confidential information and not to disparage HP or the Sandlers. The settlement agreement called for binding arbitration of any future disputes between McDonald and HP, including any claims arising from alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, or the alleged breach, nonperformance, enforcement, interpretation or validity of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement authorized the arbitrator to impose any and all legal or equitable remedies, including injunctive relief, damages, punitive damages, and specific performance. The settlement agreement specified that the arbitration was to be conducted by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services Endispute (JAMS), with all costs, fees, and expenses to be borne pursuant to JAMS rules, subject to reassessment in favor of the prevailing party.