Court Opinion

ID: 9411337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 15:09:33.260881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.987715
License: Public Domain

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                        In The Court of Appeals

            Joseph Abruzzo, Respondent,

            v.

            Bravo Media Productions LLC, Haymaker Media, Inc.,
            NBC Universal Media, LLC, Comcast Corporation,
            Craig Conover, Chelsea Meissner, and Madison LeCroy,
            Appellants.

            Appellate Case No. 2020-001095

                        Appeal From Charleston County
                       Bentley Price, Circuit Court Judge

                              Opinion No. 6004
                    Heard June 5, 2023 – Filed July 26, 2023

                       REVERSED AND REMANDED

            James David Smith, Jr., Helen F. Hiser, and Danielle F.
            Payne, all of McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC, of
            Mt. Pleasant, for Appellants.

            Aaron Eric Edwards, of George Sink, PA Injury
            Lawyers, of North Charleston, for Respondent.

KONDUROS, J.: Bravo Media Productions, LLC, Haymaker Media, Inc., NBC
Universal Media, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Craig Conover, Chelsea Meissner,
and Madison LeCroy (Appellants) appeal the circuit court's Form 4 Order denying
their motion to dismiss Joseph Abruzzo's amended complaint and compel
arbitration. Appellants assert the arbitrator should decide whether Abruzzo's
claims are subject to arbitration. We reverse the circuit court's order and remand
for an order compelling arbitration.

FACTS

In the fall of 2018, Abruzzo met Kathryn Dennis. At that time, Abruzzo was a
Florida politician and Dennis was a cast member on the reality television show
Southern Charm.1 Shortly after meeting, Abruzzo and Dennis began a romantic
relationship. According to Abruzzo, Dennis asked him to appear on season six of
Southern Charm. Abruzzo claims that the show runners wanted him to go on a
"guy's trip" with other cast members or have a dinner date with Dennis in a "public
crowded restaurant." Instead, Abruzzo agreed to be a voluntary participant on the
show for a private dinner at Dennis's house in downtown Charleston.

Abruzzo admits that he signed a three-page Release and Arbitration Agreement2
before filming began. In paragraph 6 of the agreement, Abruzzo agreed that he
would not be paid for any of the rights listed in the agreement. Abruzzo also
acknowledged and agreed that "a significant element of the consideration" he
received under the agreement was the opportunity for publicity.

In paragraph 8 of the agreement, Abruzzo agreed that he understood that "other
parties may communicate private, factual, or fictional information" about himself
that he could find "humiliating or embarrassing or that is defamatory, disparaging
or unfavorable and that the depiction of such information may portray [him] in a
false light." Abruzzo consented to the inclusion of this information in the show
"even to the extent such inclusion might otherwise constitute an actionable tort."

1
  Southern Charm features the personal and professional lives of various
Charleston residents.
2
  All of the appellants in this case are parties to the agreement. Pursuant to its
terms, NBC Universal Media, LLC, is designated as the Network; Comcast
Corporation and Bravo Media Productions LLC, are designated as affiliated
entities; Haymaker Media, Inc is designated as the Producer; and the individual
defendants are express intended third party beneficiaries of the Release and
Arbitration Agreement.
Paragraph 19 of the agreement, entitled "MEDIATION & ARBITRATION,"
contains the arbitration clause.

               WHERE ANY DISPUTE IN CONNECTION WITH
               THIS AGREEMENT ARISES, THE PARTIES
               AGREE TO FIRST TRY TO RESOLVE SUCH
               DISPUTE THROUGH CONFIDENTIAL
               MEDIATION. IF MEDIATION IS
               UNSUCCESSFUL, THEN ALL DISPUTES,
               INCLUDING THE SCOPE OR APPLICABILITY
               OF THIS AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE, SHALL
               BE RESOLVED BY FINAL AND BINDING
               ARBITRATION ADMINISTERED BY JAMS[3] OR
               ITS SUCCESSOR ("JAMS") IN ACCORDANCE
               WITH ITS STREAMLINED ARBITRATION
               RULES AND PROCEDURES . . . . ALL SUCH
               PROCEEDINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE
               CITY OF NEW YORK. MY AGREEMENT TO
               MEDIATE ANY AND ALL DISPUTES SHALL
               EXTEND TO THE RELEASED PARTIES.

Additionally, the following is printed immediately above the signature line:

               I HAVE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO READ
               THIS ENTIRE AGREEMENT, HAD AN
               OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS AGREEMENT
               WITH AN ATTORNEY OF MY CHOICE, AND
               HAVE IN FACT READ THIS AGREEMENT. I
               UNDERSTAND THAT I AM GIVING UP LEGAL
               RIGHTS IN THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING,
               WITHOUT LIMITATION, MY RIGHT TO FILE A
               LAWSUIT IN COURT OR TO BRING A CLAIM IN
               CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT.

Abruzzo claims that prior to and following filming, Appellants assured him that the
show would portray him in a good light. Abruzzo also asserts that he was under

3
    JAMS stands for Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.
pressure to sign the agreement because he and Dennis had gone through hair and
makeup and were sitting down for dinner, the film crew was ready to begin, and
"bright lights" were shining on him.

Additionally, Abruzzo initially alleged that he was presented with a document for
his signature "turned to the third page." Abruzzo then alleged that he was
presented with a "partial piece of paper with only the signature portion of the page
visible," and Appellants assured him that the document simply authorized them to
film the dinner. However, the executive producer asserted that Abruzzo asked a
question about paragraph 5 of the agreement, which is located on the first page.
Additionally, the record contains a photograph that shows Abruzzo displaying the
third page of the agreement and clearly depicts more than just a signature block.

Abruzzo claims that he ended his relationship with Dennis in early 2019, and
Appellants "later falsely claim[ed] that Dennis ended the relationship . . . as a result
of the concern expressed by other cast members . . . ." Abruzzo asserts these
concerns were false and "designed and intended to defame, disparage, and/or
portray [him] as an unsafe, corrupt, abusive and/or otherwise unsavory individual
in order to preserve and further Dennis's storyline on the show."

Specifically, Abruzzo alleges that Conover made false statements during an
episode of Southern Charm by saying that Abruzzo is "a disgraced politician in
Florida" and "not running for re-election because of his divorce. His wife is
accusing him of being physically abusive." Additionally, Abruzzo alleges that
LeCroy, Meissner, and other individuals falsely stated there were nude
photographs of him on the internet. Abruzzo asserts that such photographs do not
exist, and Appellants intentionally showed a photograph with "the image blurred at
the bottom of his torso" to imply the cast members were looking at his penis.

On January 28, 2020, Abruzzo filed a complaint in the Charleston County Court of
Common Pleas, alleging ten causes of action against Appellants.4 On May 12,
2020, Appellants filed a motion to dismiss. On June 19, 2020, Appellants filed a
corresponding memorandum in support, and Abruzzo filed an amended complaint

4
 Abruzzo's claims were for Outrage/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
Fraud; Constructive Fraud; Negligent Misrepresentation; Fraudulent Inducement;
Civil Conspiracy; Defamation; Violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act; Negligence; and Unjust Enrichment.
that added seven additional causes of action.5 Abruzzo also filed a one-paragraph
response to Appellants motion to dismiss, arguing that it was moot in light of his
amended complaint. On June 22, 2020, Appellants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and to compel arbitration as well as a supporting
memorandum. On June 29, 2020, Abruzzo filed a memorandum in opposition.
The circuit court presided over a hearing between the parties on June 30, 2020.

On July 6, 2020, the circuit court issued a Form 4 Order denying Appellants'
motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Appellants requested that the circuit
court issue a detailed written order setting forth the reasons for denying the motion.
Abruzzo opposed that request. In response, the circuit court's law clerk responded:
"[W]e did a [F]orm 4 [Order], and I believe it indicated that if the parties desired
formal orders they could submit them to us. If it did not include that part I
apologize." On July 16, 2020, Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59(e). The circuit court denied Appellants' motion on July 22,
2020, stating a hearing was not necessary. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"Arbitrability determinations are subject to de novo review." Smith v. D.R.
Horton, Inc., 417 S.C. 42, 47, 790 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2016). "However, a circuit court's
factual findings will not be reversed on appeal if any evidence reasonably supports
the findings." Id. at 48, 790 S.E.2d at 3.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Appellants argue that the circuit court erred in failing to enforce the parties'
arbitration agreement. Appellants assert that the arbitrator should decide whether

5
 Abruzzo's additional claims were for Wrongful Appropriation of
Personality/Infringement on the Right of Publicity; Wrongful Publicizing of
Private Affairs; Public Nuisance; Private Nuisance; Fraudulent Inducement of
Arbitration Agreement/Unconscionability of Arbitration Agreement; and
Fraudulent Inducement of Release/Unconscionability of Release; and Rescission of
"Release and Arbitration Agreement."
Abruzzo's claims are subject to arbitration because Abruzzo's allegations focus on
the agreement as a whole rather than the arbitration clause specifically. We agree.

"Due to the strong South Carolina and federal policy favoring arbitration,
arbitration agreements are presumed valid." Doe v. TCSC, LLC, 430 S.C. 602,
607, 846 S.E.2d 874, 876 (Ct. App. 2020). The parties' contract is governed by the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which states the following:

             A written provision in any maritime transaction or a
             contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to
             settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of
             such contract or transaction . . . shall be valid,
             irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as
             exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract
             ....

9 U.S.C. § 2.

"Because an arbitration provision is often one of many provisions in a contract
covering many other aspects of the transaction, the first task of a court is to
separate the arbitration provision from the rest of the contract. This . . . is the law[]
known as the Prima Paint doctrine." Doe, 430 S.C. at 607, 846 S.E.2d at 876
(citing Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 403-04
(1967)). Accordingly, "[c]hallenges to the validity of arbitration agreements 'upon
such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract' can be
divided into two types." Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440,
444 (2006). "One type challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to
arbitrate." Id. "The other challenges the contract as a whole, . . . e.g., the
agreement was fraudulently induced . . . ." Id.

Under the Prima Paint doctrine, "if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the
arbitration clause itself—an issue which goes to the making of the agreement to
arbitrate—the . . . court may proceed to adjudicate it." Id. at 445 (quoting Prima
Paint, 388 U.S. at 403-404). However, "the statutory language [of section 4 of the
FAA6] does not permit the . . . court to consider claims of fraud in the inducement
of the contract generally." Id. (quoting Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 403-404).

In Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., the United States Supreme Court provided the
following:

             First, as a matter of substantive federal arbitration law, an
             arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of
             the contract. Second, unless the challenge is to the
             arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract's validity
             is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance. Third,
             this arbitration law applies in state as well as federal
             courts.

Id. at 445-46. The Court concluded that "a challenge to the validity of the contract
as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator."
Id. at 449.

Here, the arbitration clause is severable from the entire agreement. The clause is
contained only in paragraph 19 of the agreement and is highlighted by the title
appearing in bold, underlined, and capital letters. The rest of the arbitration clause
is also highlighted by appearing in bold and capital letters, unlike the paragraphs
around it. Additionally, the broad language of "any dispute in connection with this
agreement" includes the enforceability and validity of the parties' agreement.

             6
               A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or
             refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement
             for arbitration may petition any United States district
             court [with jurisdiction] . . . for an order directing that
             such arbitration proceed in a manner provided for in such
             agreement. . . . [U]pon being satisfied that the making of
             the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply
             therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order
             directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in
             accordance with the terms of the agreement.

9 U.S.C. § 4.
Like the parties opposed to arbitration in Prima Paint and Buckeye, Abruzzo
challenges the validity and enforceability of the entire contract rather than the
arbitration clause specifically. Abruzzo alleges that producers assured him that he
would be portrayed in a good light and that he felt pressure to sign the agreement
due to the film crew and bright lights. These allegations do not specifically pertain
to the arbitration clause; rather, they address how he felt about signing the entire
agreement to both appear on the show and arbitrate any disputes. Therefore,
Abruzzo has failed to specifically challenge the arbitration agreement
independently from the rest of the agreement as required under Prima Paint and
Buckeye. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's order and remand for an order
compelling arbitration.7

CONCLUSION

Abruzzo challenges the validity and enforceability of the parties' agreement as a
whole rather than the arbitration agreement specifically. Therefore, the circuit
court's order is

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

VINSON, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

7
  Because we remand on this issue, we do not address Appellants' other
contentions. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598,
613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting appellate courts need not address
remaining issues when disposition of an issue is dispositive).