OlderTue, 12 August 2008 at 3:25 pm
Vanessa Hudgens Sued For $5 Million
High School Musical star Vanessa Hudgens is being sued by producer Johnny Vieira for more than $5 million and punitive damages.
In May 2005, Vieira claims he and Vanessa entered into an agreement to launch Vanessa’s career and “share equally” in the profits. But after High School Musical became a hit, he says she dropped him and owes him $2 million.
Vanessa even sent a photo of herself to Viera with this inscription: “Johnny, thank you for everything, without you, I would be no where [sic], we will make it BIG- Vanessa Hudgens. Sweet.” You can see the note at TMZ.
Share This Post:
536 Comments
Tony Baja, thanks for highlighting this part of the agreement. The rest of us commoners can only watch and wait for someone like you and CC to keep us in the know. The legal jargon in the agreement/contract is beyond most of us.
I just hope like the rest, that Vanessa, her dad and HR Records have a really good team of lawyers to quash this case.
I LOVE HER SOOO MUCH!!!
AND SHUT UP STUPID HATERS!!!
AND A HUG FOR ALL THE FANS!!!
WITH V ‘TILL THE END!
GO BABY V
Tony Baja - Thanks for this, it’s very interesting. How did you find the settlement agreement? I looked but couldn’t find it, the only information I had about it was what was referenced in the suit.
I would love to read it if you have it? My e-mail is Vgirlcc@aim.com , I would really appreciate if you could send it to me.
Maybe together we can investigate this further and present a more comprehensive analysis to the fans.
-CC
Let me try this again, my last post didn’t come up…
but here’s a general outline of what i think needs to be covered
1.) What legal authority did/will Johnny Vieira use to enforce this contract — legal authority is a Family Code or labor code section which allows for the contract with a minor to NOT be disaffirmed.
2.) If the Coogan act (Family Code section 6750-6751) is used, does it apply simply to Johny Vieira’s type operation, whereas Johnny Vieira wants a 50/50 cut, and a “Producer Advance” of $35,000 for all three albums.
Or, under the Coogan act it seems there must be an actual employer involved, and Johnny Vieira may be seen as a third party “casting agency”.
CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE
Section 6750. (a) This chapter applies to the following contracts entered
into between an unemancipated minor and any third party or parties on
or after January 1, 2000:
(1) A contract pursuant to which a minor is employed or agrees to
render artistic or creative services, either directly or through a
third party, including, but not limited to, a personal services
corporation (loan-out company), or through a casting agency…
SETTLEMENT and RELEASE AGREEMENT
2 (c) (i) “with respect to each of the album masters, and no others, artist shall pay or cause to paid to Vieira a producer advance (”Producer Advance”) equal to eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($8,750) per album master produced and delivered by Vieira. For the avoidance of doubt, to total producer advance payable to Vieira hereunder shall equal the sum of ($35,000)
3.) Could this Contract with a minor be lawful under the “Talent Agency Act” Labor Code 1700.37?
a) Vieira legal complaint
11. line 14 - 15
“Vieira had up to that point expended a substantial amount of time and money in connection with HUDGENS career in the entertainment industry.”
b) line 15 - 17
“HUDGENS had given Vieira a photograph of herself with the following inscription: “Johnny, thank you for everything, without you, i would be no where, we will make it BIG - Vanessa Hudgens…”
4.) Or would, under the SETTLEMENT and RELEASE AGREEMENT
1 (b) (ii)(iv) “under NO circumstance SHALL Vieira state or advertise that Hudgens is signed to Vieira and/or the production agreement or that Vieira discovered and/or launched hudgens career.”
NOTE — “under NO circumstance”. That seems to imply under legal actions too.
5.) SETTLEMENT and RELEASE AGREEMENT
7. - “Nothing contained herein will be construed as to require the commisson to any not contrary to law, and whenever their is any conflict between any provision contained herein and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation, the latter will prevail”
COMMENT — The LATTER being “any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation” while the FORMER is seen as “any provision contained herein” (as it applies to the “Settlement Agreement”) ——————My impression is that the “Talent Agency Act” applies to this Contract Settlement Agreement, and that a DULY LICENSED talent agency is required under section 1700.37 –
6.) TALENT AGENCY ACT
Labor Code section 1700.37 — A minor cannot disaffirm a contract, OTHERWISE VALID… with a DULY LICENSED TALENT AGENCY as defined in Section 1700.4…to secure him engagements to render… producer, production executive,…the blank form of which has been approved by the Labor Commissioner pursuant to Section 1700.23, where such contract has been approved by the superior court of the county where such minor resides or is employed…
NOTE -
a) This seems to imply that “producer and production executive” as part of the Talent Agency Act.
b) “DULY LICENSED Talent Agency” (which may discover talent, as Johny Vieira is claiming in his Legal Complaint 3 (a) above)
c) “OTHERWISE VALID” — could this contract be VOIDABLE simply based on the multiple areas of non compliance with the Labor Code “Talent Agency Act”?
d) “the blank form of which has been approved by the Labor Commissioner pursuant to Section 1700.23″ — Even the blank contract form needs to be approved by the LABOR COMMISSIONER under the Talent Agency Act.
7.) Their are Multiple sections that bring this stage of the entertainment business under the Guidance and oversight of the LABOR COMMISSION, and/or LABOR COMMISSIONER, From Good faith, to Moral character of the talent agent.
This may be slow at first, but i will try to explain each step in detail, starting with the COOGAN ACT, as it may apply to this case.
To CC-BOJI
Here’s the link for the court record
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/hudgens.pdf
You can confirm my points on the settlement agreement there.
I. — CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE Section 1700.36.
No talent agency shall accept any application for employment made by or on behalf of any minor, as defined by subdivision (c) of Section 1286, or shall place or assist in placing any such minor in any employment whatever in violation of Part 4
1286. As used in this article:
(c) “Minor” means any person under the age of 18 years who is
required to attend school under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
48200) and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 48400) of Part 27 of
the Education Code and any person under the age of six years.
COMMENT — This may apply to some contracts with minors with an UNLICENSED “Talent Agency”. That those contracts may be deemed “otherwise INvalid” because provision.
NOTE — section 1700.36 does NOT state “duly licensed” or “otherwise valid”
II. — TALENT AGENCY ACT — LABOR CODE Section 1700.37.
A minor cannot disaffirm a contract, OTHERWISE VALID, entered into during minority, either during the actual minority of the minor entering into such contract or at any time thereafter, with a DULY LICENSED talent agency as defined in Section 1700.4…
COMMENT — Note “DULY LICENSED” Talent Agency as defined in Section 1700.4
QUESTION — Was Johny Vieira aka Johny on the spot a “DULY LICENSED” Talent agency as defined in Section 1700.4, as a producer, production executive/company under Section 1700.34 (above) so as to where this code section would apply in his case, to make this contract with a minor Valid.
III. — CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE Section 1700.37.
A minor cannot disaffirm a contract, OTHERWISE VALID, entered into during minority, either during the actual minority of the minor entering into such contract or at any time thereafter, with a duly licensed talent agency as defined in Section 1700.4 to secure him engagements to render… producer, production executive, choreographer, composer, conductor or designer, the blank form of which has been approved by the Labor Commissioner pursuant to Section 1700.23, where such contract has been approved by the superior court of the county where such minor resides or is employed.
COMMENT — The “OTHERWISE VALID” could mean, if the contract is valid under all the provisions of the “TALENT AGENCY ACT”. This also shows a clause for producer, production executive, as it applies under the TALENT AGENCY ACT……..
QUESTION — Would these contracts be deemed INVALID by violation of the provisions listed ( or unlicensed talent agency) , and could the Labor Commissioner deem these Contracts invalid, or would these need to go to the superior court for that determination?
IV. — CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE Section — 1700.44.
(a) In cases of controversy arising under this chapter, the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner, who shall hear and determine the same, subject to an appeal within 10 days after determination, to the superior court where the same shall be heard de novo.
(c) No action or proceeding shall be brought pursuant to this chapter with respect to any violation which is alleged to have occurred more than one year prior to commencement of the action or proceeding.
COMMENT — without a arbitration agreement within the contract under LC section 1700.45, section 1700.44 seems to apply, that disputes will be referred to the Labor Commissioner, then it may be appealed to the Superior Court……………..This is “due process”, under California Constitution section 7(a).
QUESTION — Was Section 1700.44 followed,and this controversy dispute resolved by the Labor Commisioner, if NO arbitration agreement was in the contract?
V. — CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE Section 1700.45.
Notwithstanding Section 1700.44, a provision in a contract providing for the DECISION BY ARBITRATION OF ANY CONTROVERY UNDER THE CONTRACT or as to its EXISTANCE, VALIDITY, construction, performance, nonperformance, BREACH, operation, continuance, or TERMINATION, shall be valid:
COMMENT — I don’t see ANY provision within the SETTLEMENT and RELEASE AGREEMENT for any Arbitration… i could have overlooked it though.
VI. — CONTRACT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
7. — Nothing contained herein will be construed as to require the commisson to any not contrary to law, and whenever their is any conflict between any provision contained herein and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation, the latter will prevail.
VII. — SUMMARY
This is just starting to establish some legal framework on this issue but their seems to be NO legal authorities on Johnny Vieira’s complaint…
IMPORTANT
a) was Vanessa the only one who signed the original contract, or was their an Adult Guardian… i see an adult on the second contract?
b) Is their a copy of that?
aaa ness te amooo!! (LL
:)
I found case law that backs up my argument….. maybe I’ll post it up tomorrow……….
any free tickets out there?
Hey, Tony Baja, guess you must be a practising lawyer or have an indepth knowledge. Wish I could help you on the free tickets but I’m not from the USA. Anyway, if you could somehow draw attention with your free legal advice, perhaps.maybe, perchance, someone with direct access to Vanessa’s team/family will only be too willing to assist you. Good Luck and looking forward to hearing more from you.
thank you tony baja, although i dont have any legal background, i seem to understand it a bit. thanks for the info. i am an avid zac and vanessa fan, so an update helps.
Thanks for the show of appreciation, here’s some more on that Talent Agency Act. Let me add, I also found Case Law (where this almost identicle situation has been adjudicated (decision form judge/judges) at a appelate level, so it should apply (but ALOT of judges are different, and rule differently)
TALENT AGENCY ACT - LABOR CODE
I. — SECTION 1700.3
As used in this chapter:
(a) “License” means a license issued by the Labor Commissioner to carry on the business of a talent agency under this chapter.
(b) “Licensee” means a talent agency which holds a valid, unrevoked, and unforfeited license under this chapter.
COMMENT — this is important that this contract be proposed and executed by a Licensed “talent agency” as decribed under section 1700.23 (production, singer, dancer clause) with all required sections of 1700.23 applied, and described under 1700.3.
QUESTION - Was Johny Vieira aka Johny on the spot licensed as required by the Talent agency act section 1700.3
II - SECTION 1700.5
No person shall engage in or carry on the occupation of a talent agency without first procuring a license therefor from the Labor Commissioner. The license shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the office of the licensee. The license number shall be referred to in any advertisement for the purpose of the solicitation of talent for the talent agency. Licenses issued for talent agencies prior to the effective date of this chapter shall not be invalidated thereby, but renewals of those licenses shall be obtained in the manner prescribed by this chapter.
COMMENT —
III. —- Section 1700.5. “No person SHALL engage in or carry on the occupation of a talent agency without first procuring a license therefor from the Labor Commissioner….”
QUESTION - The term SHALL is a demand without option, unwavering. This shows the Importance of a Licensed Talent agency as required by the “Talent Agency Act”, within the requirements of the “Talent Agency Act”
IV. — Section 1700.5 — “…The license SHALL be posted in a conspicuous place in the office of the licensee…”
QUESTION — Was their an Office as required under other sections of the California “Talent Agency Act”, Then was the license posted in that office, under the term “SHALL” be posted?
V. — Section 1700.5 “…The license number SHALL be referred to in any advertisement for the purpose of the solicitation of talent for the talent agency…”
QUESTION — The term “SHALL” was again used as a mandatory requirement.
VI. — “…Licenses issued for talent agencies prior to the effective date of this chapter SHALL NOT be invalidated thereby, but renewals of those licenses SHALL be obtained in the manner prescribed by this chapter….”
QUESTION — even if Johny Viera aka Johny on the spot was previously license, the requirments shows that Johny Vieira aka Johny on the spot needs to reenew that license per the requirments under the “talent agency act, under Section 1700.5, and other sections of the “Talent Agency Act”
VII — SUMMARY
I. SECTION 1700.03 requires;
(a) “License”
(b) “Licensee”
II. — SECTION 1700.05
III. — Section 1700.05
person “SHALL” have approved license from Labor Commissioner.
IV. — Section 1700.05
License itself “SHALL” be posted in office
V. — Section 1700.05
License number “SHALL” be posted on advertisement
VI. — Section 1700.05
Prior to and after effective date for licenses “SHALL”
VII — summarry
These are requirements under the Talent Agency Act, if you can follow along they may all be VERY IMPORTANT in this case. I have case law that supports my argument, BUT Alot of judges are different, and have different opinions, BUT again, I have found an appelate decision, from a Tribunal (3 judge panel) that all ruled the same in support of my argument. This might take a few more pages, but i think it is important to get a FULL Understanding of this IMPROTANT case law.
Note — the numbering on this is NOT accurate, I’ve numbered each page I - VII…..
SUBsections a-c are boring, but section D is VERY IMPORTANT
so SOMEONE would need to Number each page, as to make each issue “identified” - hey, isn’t there an album with that title?
I. — TALENT AGENCY ACT — LABOR CODE SECTION 1700.6
A written application for a license shall be made to the Labor Commissioner in the form prescribed by him or her and shall state:
(a) The name and address of the applicant.
(b) The street and number of the building or place where the business of the talent agency is to be conducted.
(c) The business or occupation engaged in by the applicant for at least two years immediately preceding the date of application.
(d) If the applicant is other than a corporation, the names and addresses of all persons, except bona fide employees on stated salaries, financially interested, either as partners, associates, or profit sharers, in the operation of the talent agency in question, together with the amount of their respective interests. If the applicant is a corporation, the corporate name, the names, residential addresses, and telephone numbers of all officers of the corporation, the names of all persons exercising managing responsibility in the applicant or licensee’s office, and the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest of 10 percent or more in the business and the percentage of financial interest owned by those persons. The application shall be accompanied by two sets of fingerprints of the applicant and affidavits of at least two reputable residents of the city or county in which the business of the talent agency is to be conducted who have known, or been associated with, the applicant for two years, that the applicant is a person of good moral character or, in the case of a corporation, has a reputation for fair dealing.
II. — Section 1700.6.
“A written application for a license shall be made to the Labor Commissioner in the form prescribed by him or her and shall state:”
COMMENT - This is another MANDATORY requirement under the term “SHALL”
III. — Section 1700.6 (c)–
“The business or occupation engaged in by the applicant for at least two years immediately preceding the date of application.”
QUESTION — If a application was filed was the requirement obtained within the process, under “due process”.
IV. — Section 1700.6 (d)
“…If the applicant is a corporation, the corporate name, the names, residential addresses, and telephone numbers of all officers of the corporation, the names of all persons exercising managing responsibility in the applicant or licensee’s office, and the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest of 10 percent or more in the business and the percentage of financial interest owned by those persons….”
QUESTION — Were these requiremnts met, as to the Corporation aspect of Johny Vieira aka Johny on the spot, as required under the California “Talent Agency Act”
V. — Section 1700.6 (d)
“…The application shall be accompanied by two sets of fingerprints of the applicant and affidavits of at least two reputable residents of the city or county in which the business of the talent agency is to be conducted who have known, or been associated with, the applicant for two years…”
QUESTION — Were these requirements met?
VI. — Section 1700.6 “…that the applicant is a person of good moral character or, in the case of a corporation, has a reputation for fair dealing.”
QUESTION — WELL, Does Johny Vieira aka Johny on the spot and the corporation involved have the required “reputation for FAIR DEALING” as required under Section 1700.6 licensing requirements in order to be claimed as a “Talent Agency”, in order to be covered under Section.
VII. SUMMARY —
I.
Labor Code Section 1700.6
II.
Application for license SHALL be sent to
Labor Commissioner, and SHALL be submitted on the proper form approved by the Labor Commisssioner.
III.
Requirements of preceding business/businesses.
IV.
busienss associates with 10% interests
V.
REQUIRED two sets of fingerprints and affidavits from two reputable residents, with association for 2 years.
VI.
REQUIRED Good Moral Character — if Corporation a reputation for “FAIR DEALING”.
VII.
These are most all REQUIRED by the LABOR CODE under the Talent Agency Act.
AGAIN, I believe I have case law that supports this argument.
I.
TALENT AGENCY ACT
LABOR CODE SECTION 1700.8.
The commissioner upon proper notice and hearing may refuse to grant a license. The proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing at Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code and the commissioner shall have all the power granted therein.
QUESTION — This Section Grants the power to the commissioner under the Government Code listed above.
II.
TALENT AGENCY ACT
LABOR CODE SECTION 1700.09
No license shall be granted to conduct the business of a talent agency:
(a) In a place that would endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the artist.
(b) To a person whose license has been revoked within three years from the date of application.
III.
TALENT AGENCY ACT
LABOR CODE SECTION 1700.10
The license when first issued shall run to the next birthday of the applicant, and each license shall then be renewed within the 30 days preceding the licensee’s birthday and shall run from birthday to birthday. In case the applicant is a partnership, such license shall be renewed within the 30 days preceding the birthday of the oldest partner. If the applicant is a corporation, such license shall be renewed within the 30 days preceding the anniversary of the date the corporation was lawfully formed. Renewal shall require the filing of an application for renewal, a renewal bond, and the payment of the annual license fee, but the Labor Commissioner may demand that a new application or new bond be submitted. If the applicant or licensee desires, in addition, a branch office license, he shall file an application in accordance with the provisions of this section as heretofore set forth.
IV.
TALENT AGENCY ACT
LABOR CODE SECTION
SECTION 1700.13.
A filing fee of twenty-five dollars ($25) shall be paid to the Labor Commissioner at the time application for consent to the transfer or assignment of a talent agency license is made but no license fee shall be required upon the assignment or transfer of a license. The location of a talent agency shall not be changed without the written consent of the Labor Commissioner.
COMMENT — “…The location of a talent agency SHALL NOT be changed without the written consent of the Labor Commissioner.”
V.
TALENT AGENCY ACT
LABOR CODE SECTION 1700.16
Such surety bonds shall be payable to the people of the State of California, and shall be conditioned that the person applying for the license will comply with this chapter and will pay all sums due any individual or group of individuals when such person or his representative or agent has received such sums, and will pay all damages occasioned to any person by reason of misstatement, misrepresentation, FRAUD, DECEIT, or any unlawful acts or omissions OF THE LICENSED TALENT AGENCY, or its agents or employees, while acting within the scope of their employment.
COMMENT - “…and SHALL be conditioned that the person APPLYING for The LICENSE will comply with this chapter and WILL PAY all sums due any individual or group of individuals when such person or his representative or agent has received such sums, and will PAY ALL DAMAGES occasioned to any person by reason of misstatement, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, or any UNLAWFUL ACTS or OMMISIONS of the LICENSED TALENT AGENCY, or its agents or employees, while acting within the scope of their employment.
VI. TALENT AGENCY ACT
LABOR CODE SECTION 1700.16 - ABBREVIATED
abrv. — “…and SHALL be conditioned that the person APPLYING for The LICENSE will comply with this chapter and WILL PAY all sums due… and will PAY ALL DAMAGES occasioned to any person…by reason of… any UNLAWFUL ACTS or OMMISIONS of the LICENSED TALENT AGENCY…
QUESTION — Does this put Johny Vieira aka Johny on the spot, liable for the legal costs and fees incurred by Vanessa Hudgens along with damages, for violating with “unlawful acts or ommisions” (violations of the Talent Agency Act) NOTE - other sections state nothing criminal in violating this act.
VII.
SUMMARRY
I.
SECTION 1700.08
Refusal of license by Labor Commisioner
II.
SECTION 1700.09
Reasons for refusal.
III.
SECTION 1700.10
Time requirements for renewal
IV.
SECTION 1700.13
Re-location of licensee needs to be approved by labor Commissioner.
V.
SECTION 1700.16
“and will pay all damages occasioned to any person by reason of misstatement, misrepresentation, FRAUD, DECEIT, or any unlawful acts or omissions OF THE LICENSED TALENT AGENCY, or its agents or employees, while acting within the scope of their employment.”
VI.
SECTION 1700.16
“…and SHALL be conditioned that the person APPLYING for The LICENSE will comply with this chapter and WILL PAY all sums due… and will PAY ALL DAMAGES occasioned to any person…by reason of… any UNLAWFUL ACTS or OMMISIONS of the LICENSED TALENT AGENCY…
COMMENT — this could also make Vieira liable for legal costs.
================BREAK TIME===================
What I am trying to do here is establish authorities (legal framework - foundation).
If you notice Johny Vieira’s lawsuit has very little legal authorities if any, BUT, hopefully this will establish a small army of authorities under the TALENT AGENCY ACT, established for this purpose……. AGAIN, i also have some case law, whereas this type case has been tried before under a 3 member tribunal level appelate decision (precedent).
I AM NOT a lawyer, i just find it very important to understand the law as it applies to different situations, and I seem to act on alot of different situations where need be.
A GOOD lawyer is a GOOD thing, finding a GOOD lawyer might seem difficult, and it’s expensive to go shopping for one (like shopping for clothes, exect, you have to pay ALOT to get the feel of a good or bad lawyer…….. I believe Vanessa has spent over 150K on another lawyer, with somewhat important results, be it good or bad.
I’ll let you all digest the Labor Code as it applies to the TALENT AGENCY ACT, that i posted above……… maybe I’ll be back tomorrow to try to complete this argument, but it might take a number of days to iron this out.
Once we establish a small army of authorites, then we can take on the lawsuit, POINT by POINT. I believe it is 1. - 9.
AGAIN, I AM NOT a LAWYER, just real curious.
================BREAK TIME===================
What I am trying to do here is establish authorities (legal framework - foundation).
If you notice Johny Vieira’s lawsuit has very little legal authorities if any, BUT, hopefully this will establish a small army of authorities under the TALENT AGENCY ACT, established for this purpose……. AGAIN, i also have some case law, whereas this type case has been tried before under a 3 member tribunal level appelate decision (precedent).
I AM NOT a lawyer, i just find it very important to understand the law as it applies to different situations, and I seem to act on alot of different situations where need be.
A GOOD lawyer is a GOOD thing, finding a GOOD lawyer might seem difficult, and it’s expensive to go shopping for one (like shopping for clothes, exect, you have to pay ALOT to get the feel of a good or bad lawyer)…….. I believe Vanessa has spent over 150K on another lawyer, with somewhat important results, be it good or bad.
I’ll let you all digest the Labor Code as it applies to the TALENT AGENCY ACT, that i posted above……… maybe I’ll be back tomorrow to try to complete this argument, but it might take a number of days to iron this out.
Once we establish some legal authorities, then maybe we can move on to addressing the lawsuit, point by point, i believe it is 1. - 9.
AGAIN, I am NOT a lawyer, just curious!
omg.. how can someone do that to her… i no that she probably has $5 million but if she wasn’t famous it would be a lot less… poor her ( even though she shouldn’t have done that, i’m still on her side!)
The main reason this guy is suing is to get publicity for his unheard of talent agency (two clients and one of them left him?)He is hoping that someone will settle with him and give him something (Vanessa, Hollywood Records, Disney) He’s trying to prove that they all conspired against him to cheat him out of 15% of royalties from the second album. That’s why he wants an audit. All the big money comes from punitive damages, which he has to prove they all cooked the books to under paid him. Don’t think Disney and Hollywood Records would risk their reputations to cheat some lowly producer out of less than 70,000 dollars By putting forth this lawsuit ,now people know who he is. Who every heard of Johny Viera before this law suit?
im really not that big of a fan of her i mean i like her but not that much. that still doesn’t mean i can’t wish her the best. I really hope she gets out of this with the majority of her money and that she doen’t have to go through this again. No one wants to lose the money that they work so hard to get
i support baby v
TEE - you’re right.the lawsuit is for 27 million in damages plus punitive damages,a nd punitive damages can reach in the hundreds of millions, especially in Deep Pockets, and disney has some real deep pockets……………………..but, I believe Johny must first get a discovery order from the judge before Johny vieira can get any audits of most any books……………….
My opinion is, this case has ALOT of weak points, starting with a conflict of interest, as in one point Johnny Vieira claims the contract is void based on NO COURT APPROVAL………………..then on some of his other points Vieira uses the contract as his authority, and wants it enforced…………….seems like a conflict there, but i could be wrong……………. I think Vieira wanta a settlement, because if this goes to court, Vieira might be found to be unlicensed and UNABLE to do work as a Talent Agent, and he may lose the few clients that he has, and have to find another business………………… if this case goes to court, ALOT of other Talent Agents might also be stripped of their business, and this would all fall onto Vieira’s court case………… ALOT of pressure on this case………………………………..but, let me continue with the boring part of this lawsuit………………………………Setting Up the LEGAL AUTHORITIES……………………….
Anyone know how Vanessa is doing…. Is she handling this situation well?
she met not have have the money shes met be poor i hope she does lose and give that man his money
from sarah @ 08/19/2008 at 10:10 am she met not have have the money shes met be poor i hope she does lose and give that man his money
From TONY BAJA ====== Well Sarah, my lil princess, the Big evil man who wants all of her money is wrong, in my opinion……. I’m trying to prove this with the law. I believe the Big Evil man is doing business outside of the law, which, in my opinion, makes him an “OUTLAW”……. and hopefully a GOOD LAWMAN will come to vanessa’s defense………………………………….. ahhhh, beauty and the beast…. oh wait, Beauty and the Good Lawman…………………
DISNEYLAND is a GOOD place, where GOOD people Go, and Disneyland has Alot of GOOD LAWMEN working there…………………….Disney is Good…………..”outlaws are NOT”……..
UGGHHHH — let me continue with the Legal Authorities
I.
TALENT AGENCY ACT
CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
SECTION 1700.21.
The Labor Commissioner may revoke or suspend any license when it is shown that any of the following occur:
(a) The licensee or his or her agent has violated or failed to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter.
II. — (b) The licensee has ceased to be of good moral character.
(c) The conditions under which the license was issued have changed or no longer exist.
III. — (d) The licensee has made any material misrepresentation or false statement in his or her application for a license.
COMMENT — Section 1700.21 The Labor Commissioner may revoke or suspend any license when it is shown that any of the following occur:
IV. — (b) The licensee has ceased to be of good moral character.
QUESTION — Could this situation be seen as a lapse of good moral character, trying to obtain 27 million dollars plus punitive damages, in what I see as a frivilous lawsuit, with a possible “MALICIOUS ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS”
“Good Moral Character” is a requirement, under the CA. Labor Code, as it deals with the Talent Agency Act…………. I believe the moral character is used, as it applies, to business dealings, especially with minors……… ESPECIALLY with MINORS.
V.
TALENT AGENCY ACT
CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
SECTION 1700.25
(a) A licensee who receives any payment of funds on behalf of an artist shall immediately deposit that amount in a trust fund account maintained by him or her in a bank or other recognized depository. The funds, less the licensee’s commission, shall be disbursed to the artist within 30 days after receipt. However, notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the licensee may retain the funds beyond 30 days of receipt in either of the following circumstances:
(1) To the extent necessary to offset an obligation of the artist to the talent agency that is then due and owing.
(2) When the funds are the subject of a controversy pending before the Labor Commissioner under Section 1700.44 concerning a fee alleged to be owed by the artist to the licensee.
(b) A separate record shall be maintained of all funds received on behalf of an artist and the record shall further indicate the disposition of the funds.
VI. — (C) If disputed by the artist and the DISPUTE is referred to the LABOR COMMISSIONER, the failure of a licensee to disburse funds to an artist within 30 days of receipt SHALL constitute a “CONTROVERSY” within the meaning of Section 1700.44.
(d) Any funds specified in subdivision (a) that are the subject of a CONTROVERSY pending before the LABOR COMMISSIONER under Section 1700.44 shall be retained in the trust fund account specified in subdivision (a) and shall not be used by the licensee for any purpose until the CONTROVERSY is DETERMINED by the LABOR COMMISSIONER or settled by the parties.
(e) If the Labor Commissioner finds, in proceedings under Section 1700.44, that the licensee’s failure to disburse funds to an artist within the time required by subdivision (a) was a willful violation, the Labor Commissioner may, in addition to other relief under Section 1700.44, order the following:
VII. — (1) AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY”S FEES TO THE PREVAILING ARTIST
(2) Award interest to the prevailing artist on the funds wrongfully withheld at the rate of 10 percent per annum during the period of the violation.
(f) Nothing in subdivision (c), (d), or (e) shall be deemed to supersede Section 1700.45 or to affect the enforceability of a contractual arbitration provision meeting the criteria of Section 1700.45.
SUMMARRY
I.
TALENT AGENCY ACT — CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTION 1700.21
II.
Section 1700.21 (b)
“The licensee has ceased to be of good moral character.”
III.
Section 1700.21 (d)
The licensee has made any material misrepresentation or false statement in his or her application for a license.
IV.
Section 1700 (b)
“The licensee has ceased to be of good moral character.”
with Question.
V.
TALENT AGENCY ACT
CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
SECTION 1700.25
VI.
Section 1700.25
(C) If disputed by the artist and the DISPUTE is referred to the LABOR COMMISSIONER, the failure of a licensee to disburse funds to an artist within 30 days of receipt SHALL constitute a “CONTROVERSY” within the meaning of Section 1700.44.
VII.
Section 1700.25
(e) (1) AWARD REASONABLE ATTORNEY”S FEES TO THE PREVAILING ARTIST
NOTE -
Subsection (c) the controversy dispute is guided by the ARTIST, filing claim with the LABOR COMMISSIONER, while subsection (e)(1) deals with attorneys fee………… I have case law whereas attorney’s fee were awarded to the artist up to the appelate level, under a tribunal of judges.
OK, we have established the CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, as it applies to the TALENT AGENCY ACT…..
NOW, we need CASE LAW, whereas this same type situation or a relevant situation as it applies to this case, has already been heard in a court, and if it has gone up to the appelate level of a tribunal (3 judge panel) then it may be seen as a precedent……….
Alot of cases get ruled both ways, and this case has that same type situation, whereas, my belief has case law, and other directions have recent case law too…………………… This is why their are Judges, to rule, on which way the law will go aka “public policy”, common law….. i think? ah ha ha…..
REPEAT - I am NOT a lawyer.
NEWSTAND
TALENT AGENCY ACT -
DON’T PROCURE EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT A LICENSE
1-Jan-2008
http://www.agentassociation.com/frontdoor/news_detail.cfm?id=306
(This website may be of interest to Vanessa’s Dad)
I.
Quoted from the link provided
“First, the Act contains detailed licensing requirements that seek to weed out individuals of questionable moral character from talent agencies and otherwise protect artists. Second, the Act severely punishes those who act as talent agents without the required license. ”
II.
Quoted from the link provided
“As the California Supreme Court noted, both the Labor Commissioner and California Courts have voided contracts whereby unlicensed personal managers procured employment for artists. See Styne v. Stevens, 26 Cal. 4th 42, 55 (2001). Subject to the Act’s one-year statute of limitations, both bodies have gone so far as to disgorge all amounts paid to a manager from the unlicensed procurement of employment. See Cuomo v. Atlas/Third Rail Management, Inc., TAC No. 21-01; Wachs v. Curry, 13 Cal. App. 4th 616, 626 (1993).”
III.
Quoted from the link provided
“The Act defines a talent agency as any “person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising or attempting to procure employment or engagements for an artist or artists. . . .” To obtain a license under the Act, an individual must undergo an extensive inquiry into his or her moral character and community standing based on references and background checks. In addition to paying fees, an applicant must also deposit a $10,000 surety bond with the Labor Commissioner to ensure that that an aggrieved artist will receive some measure of reimbursement in the event of a violation. ”
IV.
Quoted from the link provided
“Once licensed, agents must submit all contracts with their artists to the Commissioner for approval. The Commissioner is authorized to withhold approval of any contract deemed “unfair, unjust, and oppressive to the artist.” Upon approval, agents must deposit all funds collected on behalf of their artists into a trust-fund account. Within 15 days after receiving the funds, the agent must distribute the funds to the artist, less the agent’s commission. Detailed records of an artist’s income are maintained and must be made available to the Labor Commissioner upon reasonable demand. ”
V.
Quoted from the link provided
“In addition to these cumbersome requirements, agents’ commissions are limited to between 10% and 20% pursuant to various entertainment union and guild agreements. ”
VI.
Quoted from the link provided
“The Yoo court upheld the trial court’s ruling for Robi, voiding Wolf’s entire contract with Robi and thereby barring any recovery under the agreement. ”
VII
SUMMARY
I.
Quoted from the link provided
“detailed licensing requirements that seek to weed out individuals of questionable moral character from talent agencies and otherwise protect artists.”
“Second, the Act severely punishes those who act as talent agents without the required license. ”
II.
Quoted from the link provided
“As the California Supreme Court noted, both the Labor Commissioner and California Courts have voided contracts whereby unlicensed personal managers procured employment for artists.”
Styne v. Stevens, 26 Cal. 4th 42, 55 (2001).
Cuomo v. Atlas/Third Rail Management, Inc., TAC No. 21-01
Wachs v. Curry, 13 Cal. App. 4th 616, 626 (1993).”
III
Quoted from the link provided
“The Act defines a talent agency as any “person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising or attempting to procure employment or engagements for an artist or artists. . . .” To obtain a license under the Act, an individual must undergo an extensive inquiry into his or her moral character and community standing based on references and background checks. ”
IV
Quoted from the link provided
“Once licensed, agents must submit all contracts with their artists to the Commissioner for approval. The Commissioner is authorized to withhold approval of any contract deemed “unfair, unjust, and oppressive to the artist.”
V.
“In addition to these cumbersome requirements, agents’ commissions are limited to between 10% and 20% . ”
VI.
Robi V. Wolf case
CONCLUSION
I.
moral character as required.
II.
CA. Supreme court ruling voiding contracts with UNLICENSED agents.
III.
“must undergo an extensive inquiry into his or her moral character and community standing”
IV.
“must submit all contracts with their artists to the Commissioner for approval”
“authorized to withhold approval of any contract deemed “unfair, unjust, and oppressive to the artist”
V.
“agents’ commissions are limited to between 10% and 20%”
VI.
Robi V. Wolf case,
NOTE — All quotes are from -
http://www.agentassociation.com/frontdoor/news_detail.cfm?id=306
That’s it for the day kids………. make sure to buckle your safety belts and hold firmly onto the safety handle in front of you………..
enjoy the ride!
Pages: « 1 … 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 » Show All
Comment and Share!
E-mail to a Friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and more!