Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi
44 Cal.4th 937 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a personal manager violates the Talent Agencies Act by procuring employment for an artist without a license, the entire management contract is not automatically void. Courts have the discretion to apply the doctrine of severability to enforce the lawful portions of the contract if the illegal procurement was not the central purpose of the agreement.
Facts:
- In 1998, actress Rosa Blasi and Marathon Entertainment, Inc. entered into an oral contract for Marathon to serve as her personal manager.
- Under the agreement, Blasi was to pay Marathon a 15% commission on her earnings from entertainment employment obtained during the contract's term.
- During the contract period, Marathon provided various services, including career counseling, personal advice, and financial assistance, such as providing a downpayment on Blasi's home.
- Blasi obtained several roles during this time, including a lead part in the television series 'Strong Medicine'.
- In the summer of 2001, Blasi unilaterally reduced her commission payments to Marathon to 10%.
- Later in 2001, Blasi ceased making payments altogether and terminated her contract with Marathon.
- Throughout the term of the management contract with Marathon, Blasi was also represented by a licensed talent agent, John Kelly.
Procedural Posture:
- Marathon Entertainment, Inc. sued Rosa Blasi in superior court for breach of contract to recover unpaid commissions.
- Blasi obtained a stay and filed a petition with the California Labor Commissioner, alleging Marathon violated the Talent Agencies Act.
- The Labor Commissioner found for Blasi, voided the contract 'ab initio', and barred Marathon from any recovery.
- Marathon appealed the Commissioner's decision to the superior court for a trial de novo.
- The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Blasi, finding the entire contract illegal and void.
- Marathon, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that the doctrine of severability could apply, and remanded the case.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to address the issue.
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 a personal manager's act of procuring employment for an artist without a talent agency license, in violation of California's Talent Agencies Act, automatically render the entire personal management contract void and unenforceable, or may a court apply the doctrine of severability to enforce the contract's lawful portions?
Opinions:
Majority - Werdegar, J.
No. A personal manager's act of procuring employment without a license does not automatically render the entire management contract void. The Talent Agencies Act applies to any person, including a manager, who engages in the conduct of procuring employment for an artist, even if it is an isolated incident. However, the Act is silent on the remedy for such a violation. Therefore, the generally applicable doctrine of severability, codified in Civil Code § 1599, may be applied. This doctrine allows a court to void the unlawful part of a contract while enforcing the lawful remainder. The court has the discretion to apply this equitable doctrine on a case-by-case basis. The overarching inquiry is whether the central purpose of the contract was illegal. If the illegal procurement was merely collateral to the main purpose of providing lawful personal management services, the court may sever the illegal portion and allow the manager to recover commissions for lawfully procured employment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the landscape for talent managers and artists in California by rejecting a per se rule of complete contract invalidation for any act of unlicensed procurement. It introduces a flexible, fact-specific analysis that allows courts to salvage the lawful aspects of a management agreement. While this protects managers from losing all compensation for an incidental violation, it also creates uncertainty, as the enforceability of a contract now hinges on a judicial determination of its 'central purpose.' The ruling shifts the risk, making it more difficult for artists to void contracts entirely but potentially leading to more litigation over the scope and severability of managers' duties.
Unlock the full brief for Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi