Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV18417, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18417    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   March 4, 2024                                    

CASE NAME:           AMP Entertainment LLC v. Whitney Phillips

CASE NO.:                23STCV18417

MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSY BY LABOR COMMISSIONER OF ISSUES ARISING UNDER THE TALENT AGENCIES ACT

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Whitney Phillips

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff AMP Entertainment LLC

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order Staying the Entire Action Pending Determination of Controversy by Labor Commissioner of Issues Arising Under the Talent Agencies Act.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Stay Action Pending Determination of Controversy by Labor Commissioner of Issues Arising Under the Talent Agencies Act is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff AMP Entertainment LLC (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Whitney Phillips (Defendant) with five causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Quantum Meruit, (4) Fraud, and (5) Unfair Business Practices. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff provided management services to Defendant related to her songwriting career. Plaintiff alleges that the parties agreed to enter a formal agreement whereby Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff 20% commission on gross income. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s services to avoid paying commission and has not paid commission.

On October 2, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer and the instant motion for stay of proceedings pending determination of controversy by labor commissioner of issues arising under the Talent Agencies Act.

On November 16, 2023, the parties Stipulated to continue the hearing on this motion which the court GRANTED.

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a limited opposition. On February 26, 2024, Defendant filed a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Request for Judicial Notice

The court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice of Exhibit A and Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of Exhibit 1. (Evid. Code § 452(d), (h); See Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23,37.) However, the court only takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)¿¿ 

Stay

Code of Civil Procedure section 187 provides:  “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”  “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”  (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see also Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co. (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 813, 817-818 [affirming the trial court’s order staying proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187].)  “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”  (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see also Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co. (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 813, 817-818 [affirming the trial court’s order staying proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187].)  

ANALYSIS:

Defendant contends that the instant matter must be stayed pending the outcome of a Petition filed with the Labor Commissioner under the Talent Agencies Act (TAA). Plaintiff does not oppose this, but does oppose Defendant’s contention that it needs to file a new Petition with the Labor Commissioner. Defendant replies that Plaintiff needs to file a new Petition because its Answer to her pending Petition improperly seeks affirmative relief.

The purpose of the TAA is “remedial; its purpose is to protect artists seeking professional employment from the abuses of talent agencies.”  (Styne v. Stevens (2001) 26 Cal.4th 42, 50.) Under the TAA, “no person shall engage in or carry on the occupation of a talent agency without first procuring a license therefor from the Labor Commissioner.”  (Lab. Code, § 1700.5.)  A “talent agency” means “a person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment or engagements for an artist….”  (Lab. Code, § 1700.4, subd. (a).)  The term “artist” includes “models.”  (Id. at subd. (b).)    

The TAA states: “In cases of controversy arising under this chapter,” for example, a person engaged in the occupation of a talent agency without a license, “the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner ….”  (Lab. Code, § 1700.4, subd. (a) [emphasis added].)  According to the California Supreme Court, “this language, using the mandatory ‘shall,’ grants ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction over issues arising under the Act’ to the Labor Commissioner. [Citations.]”  (Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 104, 127.) 

Here, the only dispute is whether Plaintiff must file a separate Petition with the Labor Commissioner. Defendant filed a Petition with the Labor Commissioner on July 7, 2023 concerning this same dispute. (Secretov Decl. ¶ 2; Exhibit A.) Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on August 3, 2023. The court has reviewed both and they fundamentally concern the same dispute. The court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff must separately file a Petition. Indeed, in Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 336, 361 (Blanks), the Court notes that the Labor Code broadly requires the parties to submit all controversies and disputes arising under the TAA to the Commissioner. (citing Styne, supra, at p. 56.) “When the Talent Agencies Act is invoked in the course of a contract dispute, the Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction to determine his jurisdiction over the matter, including whether the contract involved the services of a talent agency.” (Blanks, supra, at p. 362.) It follows, therefore, that Defendant’s pending Petition with the Commissioner satisfies the requirement under the TAA for the Commissioner to resolve these issues. The court has read the authority provided by Defendant and does not see a requirement for Plaintiff to submit its own Petition that would fundamentally involve the same issues as Defendant’s Petition. Additionally, it appears to the court that this would also be a question properly addressed by the Commissioner as it would “colorably” arise under the TAA. (See Blanks, supra, at p. 365.)

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to stay  matter pending determination of the Petition with the Labor Commissioner but DENIES Defendant’s request to order Plaintiff to file a separate Petition.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Motion to Stay Action Pending Determination of Controversy by Labor Commissioner of Issues Arising Under the Talent Agencies Act is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             March 4, 2024             __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court