Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
U.S. Supreme Court Favors Arbitration Over CA Agent's Law
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) overrode the California Talent Agencies Act (TAA) for purposes of sending a dispute between a TV personality and his personal manager to an arbitrator per an arbitration clause in the management contract. Preston v. Ferrer, 06-1463. The California Court of Appeal had ruled in the dispute between TV's 'Judge Alex' Ferrer and manager Arnold Preston that under the TAA, the California Labor Commissioner had original jurisdiction over Preston's claim for management commissions from Ferrer. (Ferrer had argued the management contract was void on the ground that Preston acted as in unlicensed talent agent.)
Reversing and remanding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 for Preston. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her majority opinion: '[W]hen parties agree to arbitrate all questions arising under a contract, state laws lodging primary jurisdiction in another forum, whether judicial or administrative, are superseded by the FAA.'
Ginsburg continued: 'The dispositive issue, then, contrary to Ferrer's suggestion, is not whether the FAA preempts the TAA wholesale. ' The FAA plainly has no such destructive aim or effect. Instead, the question is simply who decides whether Preston acted as personal manager or as talent agent.'
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) overrode the California Talent Agencies Act (TAA) for purposes of sending a dispute between a TV personality and his personal manager to an arbitrator per an arbitration clause in the management contract. Preston v. Ferrer, 06-1463. The California Court of Appeal had ruled in the dispute between TV's 'Judge Alex' Ferrer and manager Arnold Preston that under the TAA, the California Labor Commissioner had original jurisdiction over Preston's claim for management commissions from Ferrer. (Ferrer had argued the management contract was void on the ground that Preston acted as in unlicensed talent agent.)
Reversing and remanding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 for Preston. Associate Justice
Ginsburg continued: 'The dispositive issue, then, contrary to Ferrer's suggestion, is not whether the FAA preempts the TAA wholesale. ' The FAA plainly has no such destructive aim or effect. Instead, the question is simply who decides whether Preston acted as personal manager or as talent agent.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.