Page 81 - RICHERT VS. SORKIN THEFT OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT AND THE WEST WING

ofthe material in question was not entitled to be a "paticipating wdter" that is, he was not allowed to compete for credit on the s€ries as a participant in the credit arbitration process The issue on appeal was whether the Guild's pafiicipating wdter determination was entitled to collateral esloppel effecf as against the plaintiff producers.r The cour( held that participaling writer determination was not sufficiently formal or "adjudicatory" in nature to be entitl€d to collateral estoppel effect vis-a-vis non-parties. ld at 1175.
Plaintiffs cite Jdcors for the broad proposilion that the Guild credit determination piocedures do not compot with "due process" [Opp at 6]. The claim is both inaccurate and irrelevant. First, we note that this case is factually distinguishable from "/acobs in virtually every material respcct. The plaintiffs in this case were determined to be participating writers; their complaints pertain to the conduct of lhe ctedil arbitration, not their exclusion from it. Moreover, this case does not involve the effect ol the crcdit detcrmination on ton-parties to tie process. Plaintiffs are writcrs who were employed under the MBA and were thus bound by the credit determjnation procedur€s, which have been rgpealedly upheld against legal challenge as a means of making "difficult scieen credit decision[s] in a speedy and fair fashion." Marino L
Witets GuiA of America, East, Inc,,992F.2d 1480, 1488 (9rh Ci-J.), cert d.enie.d,114 S.Ct. 472 (1993). The "Iacobs court itself notes that the participating writer determination was "undoubtedly conducted with care and in good faith," but could not be used by CBS to bind non- parties to the credit process from pu$uing their claims in court. 291 F.3d at 1175.
IV. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT EXPLAINED TI.IE BASIS FOR BURMESTER'S LIABILITY.
We will not belabor the issue of Burmester's nonliabiliry as an individual. A long line of authority holds thal union agents arc not individually liable for DFR breaches, See Morris v.
5 The writer had previously conceded that he was bound by the Guild's determination and was Dot a party to the appeal. Id. at1176.
9