Knutsson v. KTXL CA2/5

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 30, 2014
DocketB252347
StatusUnpublished

This text of Knutsson v. KTXL CA2/5 (Knutsson v. KTXL CA2/5) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Knutsson v. KTXL CA2/5, (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Filed 10/30/14 Knutsson v. KTXL CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

KURT KNUTSSON et al., B252347

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC500792) v.

KTXL, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven J. Kleifield, Judge. Affirmed. Barnes & Thornburg, Stephen R. Mick and Christian A. Jordan for Defendants and Appellants. Judith Salkow Shapiro; Moskowitz Law Group and Karen Moskowitz for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Defendants, are the following non-California television stations: KTXL, LLC;

KXWB, LLC; KIAH, LLC; WSFL, LLC; KDAF, LLC; WPHL, LLC; WPMT, LLC;

WXMI, LLC; WGN Continental Broadcasting Company, LLC; WPIX, LLC; Tribune

Broadcasting Seattle, LLC; Tribune Broadcasting Hartford, LLC; Tribune Broadcasting

Indianapolis, LLC; Television New Orleans, Inc.; and KPLR, Inc. The codefendant is

KTLA, LLC. Defendants appeal from an order denying their petition to compel

arbitration and for a stay. Defendant sought to compel arbitration with plaintiffs, Kurt

Knutsson and Woojivas, Incorporated. The trial court denied the motion to compel

arbitration. We affirm.

In Knutsson v. KTLA, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1126-1136 (Knutsson),

we held the trial court correctly denied a petition to compel arbitration brought the

codefendant,. KTLA, LLC. Here, no arbitration agreement exists between defendants

and plaintiffs. Further, our decision in Knutsson, supra, is controlling in terms of any

rights defendants have to compel arbitration. Defendants were not entitled to compel

arbitration nor a stay attendant to such proceedings. And, we need not address the merits

of defendants’ contentions concerning the Code of Civil Procedure section 916 automatic

stay. The remittitur will issue in Knutsson, supra, before it does in this case. Thus, once

the remittitur issues in Knutsson, supra, the automatic stay will have no effect in our case.

Any contention concerning the automatic stay is moot. (Eye Dog Foundation v. State

Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541; MHC Operating Limited

Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214.)

2 The orders under review are affirmed. Plaintiffs, Kurt Knutsson and Woojivas,

Incorporated, are to recover their costs incurred on appeal from defendants: KTXL,

LLC; KXWB, LLC; KIAH, LLC; WSFL, LLC; KDAF, LLC; WPHL, LLC; WPMT,

LLC; WXMI, LLC; WGN Continental Broadcasting Company, LLC; WPIX, LLC;

Tribune Broadcasting Seattle, LLC; Tribune Broadcasting Hartford, LLC; Tribune

Broadcasting Indianapolis, LLC; Television New Orleans, Inc.; and KPLR, Inc.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

MOSK, J.

KRIEGLER, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose
130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 564 (California Court of Appeal, 2003)
Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind
432 P.2d 717 (California Supreme Court, 1967)
Knutsson v. KTLA, LLC
228 Cal. App. 4th 1118 (California Court of Appeal, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Knutsson v. KTXL CA2/5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knutsson-v-ktxl-ca25-calctapp-2014.