Beverly Glen Music, Inc. v. Warner Communications, Inc.
178 Cal. App. 3d 1142, 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2729, 224 Cal. Rptr. 260 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer who is statutorily prevented from enjoining an employee from breaching a personal service contract cannot achieve the same result indirectly by enjoining the employee's new employer from hiring them.
Facts:
- In 1982, Beverly Glen Music, Inc. signed a recording contract with singer Anita Baker.
- Baker recorded one moderately successful album for Beverly Glen.
- In 1984, Warner Communications, Inc. offered Baker a more favorable contract, which she accepted due to difficulties with Beverly Glen.
- Baker notified Beverly Glen that she would no longer perform under their contract.
- The contract between Baker and Beverly Glen did not guarantee her the minimum annual compensation of $6,000 required by California statute to enjoin the breach of a personal service contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Beverly Glen Music, Inc. first sued Anita Baker in a California trial court, seeking an injunction to stop her from performing for other studios.
- The trial court denied the injunction against Baker because her contract did not meet the statutory requirements.
- Beverly Glen then voluntarily dismissed its action against Baker.
- Beverly Glen subsequently filed a new lawsuit in a California trial court against Warner Communications, Inc. for inducing breach of contract.
- In this second lawsuit, Beverly Glen moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Warner from employing Baker.
- The trial court denied the preliminary injunction against Warner.
- Beverly Glen, as appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of the injunction to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California law permit a court to enjoin a new employer from hiring an artist when the artist's former employer is statutorily barred from directly enjoining the artist from performing for others?
Opinions:
Majority - Kingsley, Acting P. J.
No. A party cannot accomplish indirectly what it is prohibited by statute from doing directly. California law strictly limits the use of injunctions to prevent the breach of personal service contracts due to the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition on involuntary servitude. The statutory exception allowing an injunction against an employee requires, among other things, a minimum guaranteed compensation of $6,000 per year, which was not present in Baker's contract with Beverly Glen. Enjoining the new employer, Warner, would have the same practical effect as enjoining Baker herself: it would deprive her of her livelihood to coerce her into returning to her former employer. This is the very result the statute is designed to prevent. If Warner's actions were wrongful, Beverly Glen's proper remedy is a suit for damages, not an injunction that effectively coerces the artist.
Analysis:
This case closes a potential loophole in California's personal service contract law, reinforcing the strong public policy against specific performance and remedies that amount to involuntary servitude. The court prioritizes the substantive effect of an injunction over the formal target of the lawsuit, preventing employers from circumventing statutory protections for artists and employees. It solidifies the principle that where an injunction against an employee is barred, the employer's remedy against a third party who induces the breach is limited to monetary damages. This decision protects employee mobility and limits the power of employers to control talent through coercive equitable remedies.
