Yoo v. Robi
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2005 WL 488649 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A personal management contract is entirely void and unenforceable if the manager engages in any unlicensed talent agency activities, such as procuring employment for an artist, thus barring recovery of commissions for all services under the contract, including those that do not require a license.
Facts:
- Howard Wolf and Paul Robi, a member of The Platters, entered into a series of one-year personal management contracts between 1983 and 1988.
- The contracts stated Wolf was a personal manager, not a licensed talent agent, and would not procure employment for Robi.
- Wolf's compensation was set at 10% of all gross monies Robi received from his activities in the entertainment industry.
- During the contract term in 1986, Wolf, who was not a licensed talent agent, procured and negotiated performance engagements for Robi at venues like the Santa Clara County fair.
- In 1986, Wolf also negotiated a recording contract for Robi with Jango Records, an activity specifically exempted from the Talent Agencies Act's licensing requirement.
- Robi recorded an album for Jango Records under this contract.
- After Robi's death, his successor licensed the Jango recordings for release, which generated income.
- Wolf sought to collect his 10% commission on the income generated from the Jango recordings, as provided for in the management contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard Wolf sued Martha Robi (Paul Robi's successor in interest) in superior court to recover commissions allegedly due under a personal management contract.
- While the suit was pending, Robi filed a 'Petition to Determine Controversy' with the California Labor Commissioner, arguing the contract was void because Wolf acted as an unlicensed talent agent.
- The superior court stayed its proceedings pending the Labor Commissioner's ruling.
- The Labor Commissioner found in Robi's favor, declaring the contracts 'unlawful and void ab initio.'
- Wolf appealed the Commissioner's decision by filing a notice for a trial de novo within the pending superior court action.
- The superior court held a trial de novo and found that Wolf had in fact procured employment for Robi in violation of the Talent Agencies Act.
- Consequently, the superior court declared all contracts between Wolf and Robi void and entered a judgment dismissing Wolf's complaint with prejudice.
- Wolf (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal, and Robi (appellee) filed a cross-appeal on a procedural 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 procurement of performance engagements for an artist without a talent agency license render the entire management contract void, thereby precluding recovery of commissions for legally permissible activities, such as procuring a recording contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, Acting P. J.
Yes, a personal manager's unlicensed procurement of performance engagements renders the entire contract void. The court held that substantial evidence showed Wolf procured employment for Robi without a talent agency license in violation of the Talent Agencies Act. California law consistently holds that such contracts are void ab initio (from the beginning), and the unlicensed party is barred from recovering commissions for any activities performed under that contract. The court rejected the argument to sever the legal activity (procuring the recording contract) from the illegal activities. It reasoned that the strong public policy of the Act—to protect artists and deter unlicensed activities—outweighs the manager's claim for compensation. Denying all recovery, even for legal services, serves as the most effective deterrent, ensuring managers comply with licensing requirements.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strict, all-or-nothing application of the California Talent Agencies Act. It establishes that even a single act of unlicensed procurement taints the entire personal management agreement, rendering it completely unenforceable. The ruling serves as a significant warning to personal managers that they cannot compartmentalize their services; if any part of their work requires a license they do not have, they risk forfeiting all compensation, including for services that are statutorily exempt from licensing. This precedent reinforces the Act's protective purpose by creating a powerful financial disincentive for managers to operate outside its regulatory framework.
Unlock the full brief for Yoo v. Robi