We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Multijurisdictional ADR Practice.
- Authors
Carson, Liz
- Abstract
This article discusses the legal case, Colmar Ltd. v. Fremantlemedia North America, Inc., which addressed issues on multi-jurisdictional alternative dispute resolution practice. In 1994, Colmar, a Delaware media corporation, licensed the motion picture 'Captive' to the California-based distributor Fremantlemedia. The license agreement provided that all disputes arising from the contract would be submitted to arbitration. In March 2000, Colmar filed an arbitration demand, alleging that Freemantlemedia breached the contract by failing to actively market the film. The arbitrator ruled in Freemantlemedia's favor. The trial court denied Colmar's request to vacate the award and confirmed it instead. In a second arbitration Colmar initiated in August 2001, the arbitrator denied Colmar's claims, holding that the first award has already addressed and decided all issues. In both cases, Freemantlemedia was represented by California lawyer Peter I. Anderson. In August 2002, Colmar filed a lawsuit in the Illinois state court, alleging that both awards were invalid because Anderson was not licensed to practice law in Illinois. Freemantlemedia moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and the court granted the motion. It also confirmed the second award. On appeal, Colmar made the same argument about Freemantlemedia's attorney. It relied on the Illinois rule that in legal proceedings where representation is by a non-admitted attorney, judgments are void. The Illinois Court of Appeals dismissed Colmar's complaint and affirmed the trial court's order, finding the rule inapplicable to arbitration.
- Subjects
DISPUTE resolution; ARBITRATION &; award; COMMERCIAL law; COLMAR Ltd.; FREMANTLEMEDIA North America Inc.
- Publication
Dispute Resolution Journal, 2004, Vol 59, Issue 1, p88
- ISSN
1074-8105
- Publication type
Article