Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Decision of Note

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
August 26, 2003

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, has decided that to toll the statute of limitations of the California Talent Agencies Act, an 'action' must be filed with the state labor commissioner, rather than state court, within one year of the alleged Act violation. Greenfield v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, B159313 (Feb. 27).

Actor/fitness expert Billy Blanks sued his manager Jeffrey Greenfield alleging, among other things, that Greenfield had functioned as an unlicensed talent agent. Blanks argued that filing suit constituted an 'action' within the meaning of Calif. Labor Code Sec. 1700.44, thus meeting the Act's one-year limitations period. The trial court stayed the suit pending the decision on a petition Blanks had filed before the state labor commissioner. The labor commissioner ruled that, though Greenfield violated the Act, Blanks had last paid a commission to Greenfield more than one year before filing the labor petition, which thus was time-barred. The trial court, however, later denied Greenfield's motion for summary adjudication.

Blanks had argued in the trial court that he filed his petition with the labor commissioner in defense of Greenfield's cross-complaint. Citing Styne v. Stevens, 26 Cal.4th 42, 26 P.3d 343, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 14 (2001), Blanks claimed that there was no time limit for filing a petition with the labor commissioner if a one was defensively using the Act.

But ruling for Greenfield, the court of appeal concluded, 'Blanks is not merely defending against a claim for relief initiated by another [as actress Connie Stevens had done when manager Norton Styne sued her for commissions in Styne]. Blanks initiated the suit against Greenfield.'

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, has decided that to toll the statute of limitations of the California Talent Agencies Act, an 'action' must be filed with the state labor commissioner, rather than state court, within one year of the alleged Act violation. Greenfield v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, B159313 (Feb. 27).

Actor/fitness expert Billy Blanks sued his manager Jeffrey Greenfield alleging, among other things, that Greenfield had functioned as an unlicensed talent agent. Blanks argued that filing suit constituted an 'action' within the meaning of Calif. Labor Code Sec. 1700.44, thus meeting the Act's one-year limitations period. The trial court stayed the suit pending the decision on a petition Blanks had filed before the state labor commissioner. The labor commissioner ruled that, though Greenfield violated the Act, Blanks had last paid a commission to Greenfield more than one year before filing the labor petition, which thus was time-barred. The trial court, however, later denied Greenfield's motion for summary adjudication.

Blanks had argued in the trial court that he filed his petition with the labor commissioner in defense of Greenfield's cross-complaint. Citing Styne v. Stevens , 26 Cal.4th 42, 26 P.3d 343, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 14 (2001), Blanks claimed that there was no time limit for filing a petition with the labor commissioner if a one was defensively using the Act.

But ruling for Greenfield, the court of appeal concluded, 'Blanks is not merely defending against a claim for relief initiated by another [as actress Connie Stevens had done when manager Norton Styne sued her for commissions in Styne]. Blanks initiated the suit against Greenfield.'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.