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
Thanks Tony Baja.
omg vanessa rocks i hope nothing goes bad i will support her 110%!
NEWSTAND
TALENT AGENCY ACT - DON’T PROCURE EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT A LICENSE
1-Jan-2008
http://www.agentassociation.com/frontdoor/news_detail.cfm?id=306
I
Quoted from website cited above
“Personal managers, meanwhile, operate largely unfettered by the constraints of the Talent Agencies Act. Free from licensing limitations, managers have much greater flexibility to negotiate compensation provisions in their contracts and may receive up to a 25% commission on an artist’s earnings. Managers may also leverage additional income from artists by producing projects in which their clients perform. ”
COMMENT — This statement I believe is not as accurate relating to recent cases. the case is MARATHON ENTERTAINMENT Inc. v BLASI et al., S145428. (B179819; 140 Cal.App.4th 1001; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC290839. which was ruled on january 28, 2008, the website above was dated january 1, 2008……. I’ll go over the Marathon v Blasi case later…….
Back to the NEWSTAND
TALENT AGENCY ACT - DON’T PROCURE EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT A LICENSE
1-Jan-2008
http://www.agentassociation.com/frontdoor/news_detail.cfm?id=306
Quoted from website above - agentassociation
“In 1985, the California Entertainment Commission—established in 1982 by amendment to the Talent Agencies Act—reported that “anyone not licensed as a talent agent should not, under any condition or circumstances, be allowed to procure employment for an artist.” This policy recommendation was not heeded, however, until the landmark decision, Waisbren v. Peppercorn Productions, Inc., 41 Cal. App. 4th 246 (1995). In Waisbren, the Court of Appeals reversed its earlier decision in Wachs v. Curry, 13 Cal. App. 4th 616 (1993), and, relying on the Commission’s Report, established that managers are barred from independently procuring employment even when devoting only a “minimal” or “incidental” portion of their time to these activities.”
Quoted from webssite above - agentassociation
“Four years later, the court in Park v. Deftones, 71 Cal. App. 4th 1465 (1999) bolstered the policy arguments underlying the Commission’s Report and the enactment of the Talent Agencies Act. A musical group, the Deftones, petitioned the Labor Commission to void its management agreements with its manager, Dave Park, on the grounds that Park had obtained performance agreements for the group on 84 separate occasions without possessing a talent agent’s license. ”
Quoted from webssite above - agentassociation
“The Park court, siding with the musical act, dismissed the fact that Park had not received commissions for procuring employment for the Deftones and emphasized that the “remedial purpose of the Act and the statutory goal of protecting artists from long recognized abuses” require the possession of a license before employment may lawfully be procured. ”
“Yoo involves a typical fee dispute between a manager and artist. Howard Wolf, a former manager of Paul Robi, one the original members of the Platters, sued Robi for an unpaid commission arising from his personal management contract. Under the agreement, Wolf was to obtain a percentage of all money that Robi received as a result of Robi’s activities in the “entertainment, amusement, and publishing industries.” The contract further provided that Wolf was to act “solely as a personal manager” because, the agreement continued, Wolf was “not licensed to seek or obtain employment or engagements for” Robi.”
“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. ”
“In so doing, the court affirmed that an agent’s role is entirely unlike that of an artist’s other personal representatives. An agent is distinguished from other personal representatives, the court explained, in that the agent’s “primary function” is marketing an “artist’s talent to buyers within the entertainment industry” and negotiating the “the particulars of employment.”
“Given that an agent is the only representative of an artist who has been evaluated based on his or her character, the court reasoned, only the agent can be trusted to provide an artist with employment that would not endanger an artist’s well-being. Finding that this rationale remains unchanged some 45 years since the Act’s enactment, the court stated that an agent’s trustworthiness stems from being subjected to “fingerprinting . . . investigations into [his or her] character, posting of bonds, [] labor commission approval of talent agency contracts . . .
COMMENT - This is a good website, but the issue of managers as they apply to the Talent Agency Act was ruled on by a Full Supreme Court unanimous decision with Marathon entertainment Inc. v Blasi.
I found 1 docket number which shows it is published, and some say if it is not published, then it can NOT be used as a precedent…… it’s a new case, and was ruled on on Jan. 28, 2008,
OK Now the specific case law, and this case law is a real good one as it deals with the “HISTORY and the SPIRIT” of the Talent Agency Act, and was ruled on in 2008, so it seems to be the most recent ruling by a full court in a unanimous decision.
Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi et al., S145428. (B179819; 140 Cal.App.4th 1001; Superior Court of Los Angeles County; BC290839
I do NOT have the published page numbers. But here is an outline of the decision;
DISCUSSION
I. Background
A. Agents and Managers
B. The Talent Agencies Act
II. The Scope of the Talent Agencies Act:
III. Sanctions for Solicitation and Procurement Under the Act
A. Marathon’s Procurement
B. The Applicability of the Doctrine of Severability to Manager-talent Contracts
C. Application of the Severability Doctrine
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WERDEGAR, J.
WE CONCUR:
KENNARD, ACTING C. J.
BAXTER, J.
CHIN, J.
MORENO, J.
CORRIGAN, J.
MCADAMS, J.
I. — BACKGROUND
A. — AGENTS AND MANAGERS
“In Hollywood, talent agents act as intermediaries between the buyers and sellers of talent. (Regulation of Attorneys, supra, 80 Cal. L.Rev. at p. 479.)”
“Generally speaking, an agent’s focus is on the deal: on negotiating numerous short-term, project-specific engagements between buyers and sellers. (Conflicts in the New Hollywood, supra, 76 So.Cal. L.Rev. at p. 981.)”
“Most significantly, those restrictions typically include a cap on the commission charged (generally 10 percent), a cap on contract duration, and a bar on producing one’s client’s work and obtaining a producer’s fee. (Screen Actors Guild, Codified Agency Regs., rule 16(g);”
Personal managers, in contrast, are not franchised by the guilds… They typically accept a higher risk clientele and offer a much broader range of services, focusing on advising and counseling each artist with an eye to making the artist as marketable and attractive to talent buyers as possible, as well as managing the artist’s personal and professional life in a way that allows the artist to focus on creative productivity… “Personal managers primarily advise, counsel, direct, and coordinate the development of the artist’s career. They advise in both business and personal matters, frequently lend money to young artists, and serve as spokespersons for the artists.” (Park v. Deftones (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1465, 1469-1470.) Given this greater degree of involvement and risk, managers typically have a smaller client base and charge higher commissions than agents (as they may, in the absence of guild price caps); managers may also produce their clients’ work and thus receive compensation in that fashion.
B. THE TALENT AGENCY ACT
“Aside from guild regulation, the representation of artists is principally governed by the Act. (§§ 1700-1700.47.) The Act’s roots extend back to 1913, when the Legislature passed the Private Employment Agencies Law and imposed the first licensing requirements for employment agents. ”
“From an early time, the Legislature was concerned that those representing aspiring artists might take advantage of them, whether by concealing conflicts of interest when agents split fees with the venues where they booked their clients, or by sending clients to houses of ill-repute under the guise of providing “employment opportunities.”
(See Stats. 1913, ch. 282, § 14, pp. 519-520 [prohibiting agents from fee-splitting, sending artists to “house[s] of ill fame”
NOTE — “fee splitting” prohibiting.
“Exploitation of artists by representatives has remained the Act’s central concern through subsequent incarnations to the present day. (See Styne v. Stevens, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 50.)”
“In 1978, the Legislature considered establishing a separate licensing scheme for personal managers.”
“Unable to reach agreement, the Legislature eventually abandoned separate licensing of personal managers and settled for minor changes in the statutory regime, shifting regulation of musician booking agents to the Labor Commissioner and renaming the Artists’ Managers Act the Talent Agencies Act. (Stats. 1978, ch. 1382, pp. 4575-4583.)”
“In 1982, the Legislature provisionally amended the Act to impose a one-year statute of limitations, eliminate criminal sanctions for violations of the Act, and establish a “safe harbor” for managers to procure employment if they did so in conjunction with a licensed agent. ”
“In its present incarnation, the Act requires anyone who solicits or procures artistic employment or engagements for artists to obtain a talent agency license.”
“In turn, the Act establishes detailed requirements for how licensed talent agencies conduct their business, including a code of conduct, submission of contracts and fee schedules to the state,”
MARATHON ENTERTAINMENT v ROSI
I. Background
B. The Talent Agencies Act
“No separate analogous licensing or regulatory scheme extends to personal managers.”
“With this background in mind, we turn to two questions not previously addressed by this court: whether the Act in fact applies to personal managers, as the Courts of Appeal and Labor Commissioner have long assumed, and if so, how.”
II. THE SCOPE OF THE TALENT AGENCY ACT
Application to Managers
“Marathon contends that personal managers are categorically exempt from regulation under the Act. WE DISAGREE; as we shall explain, the text of the Act and persuasive interpretations of it by the Courts of Appeal and the Labor Commissioner demonstrate otherwise.”
“We begin with the language of the Act. (Elsner v. Uveges (2004) 34 Cal.4th 915, 927.) Section 1700.5 provides in relevant part: “No person shall engage in or carry on the occupation of a talent agency without first procuring a license therefor from the Labor Commissioner.” … and “ ‘[t]alent 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 or artists” other than recording contracts (§ 1700.4, subd. (a)).”
NOTE — other than recording contracts.
“It regulates conduct, not labels; it is the act of procuring (or soliciting), not the title of one’s business, that qualifies one as a talent agency and subjects one to the Act’s licensure and related requirements.”
“Any person who procures employment — any individual, any corporation, any manager — is a talent agency subject to regulation. (§§ 1700, 1700.4, subd. (a).)”
“Consequently, as the Courts of Appeal have unanimously held, a personal manager who solicits or procures employment for his artist-client is subject to and must abide by the Act.”
“Considering this in isolation, one might interpret the statute as applying only to those who regularly, and not merely occasionally, procure employment.”
“However, as we have previously acknowledged in dicta, “[t]he weight of authority is that even the incidental or occasional provision of such services requires licensure.”
“In agreement with these decisions, the Labor Commissioner has uniformly interpreted the Act as extending to incidental procurement.”
“The consequence of this conscious omission is not, as Marathon contends, that personal managers are therefore exempt from regulation. Rather, they remain exempt from regulation insofar as they do those things that personal managers do, but they are regulated under the Act to the extent they stray into doing the things that make one a talent agency under the Act. ”
III. — SANCTIONS FOR SOLICITATION AND PROCUREMENT UNDER THE ACT.
A. MARATHON”S PROCUREMENT
“Finally, although Marathon argued below that it fell within section 1700.44, subdivision (d)’s “safe harbor” for procurement done in conjunction with a licensed talent agency, it has not preserved that argument here. Accordingly, we assume for present purposes that the safe harbor provision does not apply.”
B. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY TO MANAGER-TALENT CONTRACTS
“We note we are not called on to decide, and do not decide, what precisely constitutes “procurement” under the Act. The Act contains no definition, and the Labor Commissioner has struggled over time to better delineate which actions involve mere general assistance to an artist’s career and which stray across the line to illicit procurement.”
“Blasi takes issue with this point, correctly pointing out that the Labor Commissioner found to the contrary, but (1) under the Act’s statutorily guaranteed trial de novo procedure, the Labor Commissioner’s findings carry no weight…”
“Finally, although Marathon argued below that it fell within section 1700.44, subdivision (d)’s “safe harbor” for procurement done in conjunction with a licensed talent agency, it has not preserved that argument here. Accordingly, we assume for present purposes that the safe harbor provision does not apply.”
====================OUCH++++++++++++++++=
On the last page, under;
B. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY TO MANAGER-TALENT CONTRACTS.
Those quotes do NOT apply to that section….. my mistake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================
MARATHON v BLASI
B. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY TO MANAGER-TALENT CONTRACTS
NOTE - This deals with the issue of whether one part of the contract can be deemed valid, while others are deemed VOID.
“We turn to the key question in Blasi’s appeal: What is the artist’s remedy for a violation of the Act? In particular, when a manager has engaged in unlawful procurement, is the manager always barred from any recovery of outstanding fees from the artist or may the court or Labor Commissioner apply the doctrine of severability (Civ. Code, § 1599) to allow partial recovery of fees owed for legally provided services?”
“Again, we begin with the language of the Act. On this question, it offers no assistance. The Act is silent — completely silent — on the subject of the proper remedy for illegal procurement.”
“Where a contract has several distinct objects, of which one at least is lawful, and one at least is unlawful, in whole or in part, the contract is void as to the latter and valid as to the rest.” (Ibid.) By its terms, it applies even — indeed, only — when the parties have contracted, in part, for something illegal. Notwithstanding any such illegality, it preserves and enforces any lawful portion of a parties’ contract that feasibly may be severed.
“Under ordinary rules of interpretation, we must read Civil Code section 1599 and the Act so as to, to the extent possible, give effect to both.”
“The two are not in conflict. The Act defines conduct, and hence contractual arrangements, that are illegal: An unlicensed talent agency may not contract with talent to provide procurement services.”
“The conclusion that the rule applies is consistent with those of the Labor Commissioner’s decisions that recognize severability principles may apply to disputes under the Act.”
“a radio personality sought a determination that his personal manager had acted as an unlicensed talent agency. The Labor Commissioner concluded the manager had engaged in unlawful procurement — indeed, that procuring employment was the manager’s primary role (id. at pp. 2, 14) — but stopped short of voiding all agreements between the parties in their entirety. Citing and applying Civil Code section 1599, the Labor Commissioner concluded that a 1997 agreement between the parties had both a lawful purpose (repayment of personal expenses the manager had fronted for Almendarez) and an unlawful purpose (payment of commissions for unlawful procurement services) and should be partially enforced.”
“In 2005, in Yoo v. Robi, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th 1089, however, the Court of Appeal considered whether to apply Civil Code section 1599 to allow a personal manager to seek commissions for lawfully provided services. It noted, correctly, that severance is not mandatory and its application in an individual case must be informed by equitable considerations.”
“Civil Code section 1599 grants courts the power, not the duty, to sever contracts in order to avoid an inequitable windfall or preserve a contractual relationship where doing so would not condone illegality.”
NOTE — “inequitable windfall”
“The Yoo Court of Appeal concluded the windfall for the artist, Robi, was not so great as to warrant severance”
“In Chiba v. Greenwald (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 71, the Court of Appeal also considered whether severance was available for an UNLICENSED MANAGER/AGENT who in that case alleged she had had a Marvin agreement with her deceased musician client/partner. Acknowledging she had ACTED WITHOUT a license… the Court of Appeal concluded equity did not require severance of any lawful portions of the Marvin agreement from the unlawful agreement to provide unlicensed talent agency services.”
“Neither Chiba nor Yoo v. Robi, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th 1089, stands for the proposition that severance is never available under the Act. In contrast, the Court of Appeal here expressly concluded, as we do, that it is available.”
“More generally, the conclusion that severance is available is consistent with a wide range of cases that have applied the doctrine to partially enforce contracts involving unlicensed services.”
“Thus, for example, in Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119 (Birbrower), a law firm licensed in New York, but not California, provided legal services in both states. The trial court and Court of Appeal invalidated the entire attorney fee agreement, but we reversed in part, explaining that under the doctrine of severability the firm might be able to recover the fees it had lawfully earned by providing services in New York, notwithstanding its unlicensed provision of services in California.”
“The Court of Appeal explained that the provision of unlicensed services did not bar all relief; on remand, the unlicensed individual could still recover for those services that did not require a broker’s license.”
I think it’s fake, I used that snipper tool thing and took the pic out… then zoomed in and it has a thing that says J.V.T.S productions at the bottom, also I’m a HUGE fan of Vanessa and it doesn’t look muck like Vanessa’s signature and the pic doesn’t look too much like Nessa either! But although I’m a huge fan this didn’t even suprise me which I’m ashamed about but she isn’t exactly squeaky clean!
Maia - if you are a fan of Vanessa you will reserve judgement on her until a judge has ruled on the case - you may also investigate this further and in doing so you may realise that it has nothing to do with Vanessa. Regardless of whether or not this guys claims are true, Vanessa herself has done nothing wrong.
I strongly believe after reading everything available that Vanessa and her family are the victims here. This Johnny Vieira guy is a total shark.
While I do agree that this publisher is just trying to get some money out of her because he knows she is rich, I am not suprised by the fact that this happened to her. She is going downhill, and she made that happen on her own.
I guess if by going downhill you mean being on tour, getting rave reviews, having thousands of screaming fans and having two motion pictures coming out then yeah! She’s going downhill alright!!
Waaay waaay far down the hill!
oh shut up! I just hate her getting everything she wants! She is a terribe role model!!
You hate her getting everything she wants? Oh, you mean you’re jealous! Well, no surprises there.
And by acknowledging that she’s “getting everything she wants” then basically you’re contradicting your statement about her “going downhill”. LOL.
Also, terrible role model? I think not. I’m not even going to begin to get into the reasons why she’s a good role model, I’d be here all night. All I can say is at least she doesn’t go around talking crap about people she doesn’t even know. Remind you of anyone?
hahaha!!!
i like her songs but always said theres sumthing bwt her i cnt stand :P
frm the naked photos i went right off her but this makes me laugh… and ses supposed to be a rolemodel?
she agreed, so al these peeps going awww poor vanessa.. **** OF!.. she needs to ****** pay up! shows how ***** greedy she is wid her muney!! he ***** made her n hes gna b the one to tear her apart! sue her for all the muney she got! she dunt deserve none of it!
Let me cooment here…
for those who say the photo means alot………..first off in the contract it is a breach to even claim that Johnny Vieira had anything to do with Vanessa’s discovery as a star……………..
So that claim is OUT..
The photo was probably taken by Johny Vieira, and he probably also told her what to wirte, so he could have some bragging rights if she ever made it big………………vanessa was in a number of movies before she signed the contract with Johnny Vieira…so HE discovered her…..BS……. Breach of contract for his statement.
2nd. most all the photo’s are the property of vanessa, and in the contract Johnny Vieira only has contract approved photo’s…so that photo is probably also a breach of the contract.
3rd. there is alot of jealousy out there for anyone who succeeds, even by other stars who want to be in her place…….. that’s common knowledge…….. Even Johny vieira’s lawsuit is probably out of jealousy, because he couldn’t produce vanessa, like the people at Diney did.
4th For those who say vanessa is NOT a good role model…………….tell me if your daughter took a silly photo, would you want her condemened for the rest of her life?
would you want her life ruined……….. her future ruined……….. would you want her life career to change into something that she truely did NOT want to do? ——————————NO, i think you would want your daughter to still follow her dreams, and if she could get past the silly mistake (and alot of girls take silly photo’s, just look on the internet) and try to go forward……….. even as difficult as it might be………………..stay strong, and follow those dreams, and maybe, just maybe, a angel might be looking over your shoulder, and help you find those dreams……………………………..I think Vanessa is finding those dreams, can be achieved, despite the obstacles…………of taking a silly photo or two.
5th - For those who say she needs to pay up……….**** YOU! You get what you deserve…… You spent little time with this kid, you got this KID to sign a contract, where she would be getting screwed one way or the other (trust me)……………..and she found a better deal, and Johny vieira had nothing to do with it………………… the contract was dismissed and a new settlement was reached, and that new contract is in controversy…………………so, you got a flimsy lawssuit that breaches on a “malicious abuse of the legal process” the lawsuit does NOT have 1 single authority, other then the contract itself, and that is even void by NO court approval…………………………so you are back to square one……………….a contract signed by a minor, with a 50/50 gig, and aneed for vanessa to pay $8,750 for each master copy for each of the 3 albums totaling $35,000 (even the numbers dont add up) so it looks like a sales contract more then anything…………….
6th — for those saying her career is going downhill……trust me, no one wants to be on a sinking ship, and if Johnny Vieira actually thought this ship was sinking, he would have bailed out long ago………….. He see’s the STAR that Vanessa has potential to be……………..he see’s talent at the intial stage, whether it’s legit or not… he see’s talent potential………………………..and this kid vanessa has TALENT, she can act, sing and dance, and has “the look” too……………………….just needs to put that package together — properly!
7th — This is NOT an attack on Johnny Vieira, we all need to make a buck somehow, and some do it in show business……some do it Valid, and others might NOT……………….but we all need to make a buck…………………but trying to exploit this kid, for half of everything then punitive damages on top of that is ludicrous………………………………..Johnny, take a small settlement and move on, this case could bring down the whole house of cards, and the case law supports it……………………… Do you want THAT on YOUR conscious? You want all them Gumba’s pissed off at you — too?
Settle it up Johny - REAL CHEAP………. and then move on…… don’t bring down the whole house of cards.
Now let me put this in pleasant terms for all the admiring fans………
Vanessa has worked hard her life for this dream… she has talent……she can sing, dance, and act……. You can see her in the concert photo’s as she matures into a developed talent…..
A role model…. I think so……. so many kids out there make a simple mistake, some don’t learn from it, some do…….. i thinking guiding kids to learn from their mistakes and keep striving for something better is a GOOD role model…………
Looks like her singing career is doing GOOD, the fans love her…….. i think she will also develop into a more mature music video direction (in time)………….she can’t be a kid forever……… but YOU can watch her grow up……………………………….and her boyfriend too………………………….they have such a good chemistry together - don’t they…………..?
For all those girls who took a silly phot and din’t get caught — LEARN FROM THIS — you can get caught, and that photo can do damage —- THINK (especially when signing 50/50 contracts)……………… and learn from Vanessa……………………….she is My role model too.
lil sweetie!
Now go Buy those CD’s and go see a show too………………..
I might continue with this legal argument in a few days…. maybe, maybe not……………………I’m hoping Johnny Vieira will see his case has little merit, especially whereas the legal costs and fees could be court ordered , to be paid, by the agent/manager……………Nessa’s last legal fee was 150K, and i think that was just for the contract settlement agreement………………………if this goes to court, his lawyer must consider……………………….does he think he will win? or will they lose and be ordered to pay legal fees………………………… even though i have read whereas Johnny Vieira says he is on bust (or something like that, i could have used the wrong terms) sorry for all my mispellings…….. I just woke up and I have a hangover!
ok yeah cause taking naked pictures of yourself and thinking ur sexy **** is great role model material! She is full of herself and I hate it!
ok yeah cause taking naked pictures of yourself and thinking ur sexy **** is great role model material! She is full of herself and I hate it!
another thing! She is using Zac for her fame! She thinks as long as she is with the hot guy, her career will boost right up!
TONY BAJA , so you mean that vanessa really owes vierra?
vanessafan - “Vanessa” doesn’t really owe him anything. Hollywood Records might, if you believe Johnny Vieira, but it’s only a few thousand. Nothing near the $27 million hes suing them all for!
And to be perfectly honest, even if they did owe him something, it’s only because of that stupid contract he got her to sign when she was a kid! He doesn’t actually DESERVE anything. He’s just trying to take her for all he can get.
Please don’t let this suit change your opinion of Vanessa, she’s really not done anything wrong, and neither has her father.
to Zeluver —– well vanessa seems to be trying real hard to be good………………it’s easy to take cheezy photo’s, to look sexy, to get attention……………….But it’s hard work to sing dance and act, then put a concert tour together after your second album at the age of 19………. Seems vanessa has worked hard, and in her leisure time, just wanted to be like other kids, who do dumb things……….but, she is paying the price, and you too, will have to pay the price, to buy her CD’s and see her LIVE in concert, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh…
To venessafan —— yeah vanessa owes Johnny Vieira a swift kick in the ****………..but legally, she needs out of this contract…..the legal battle may, or may not be good for her……legally i say vieira may owe vanessa legal fees for her court case, and johny vieira gets nothing…………………………..But, that is up to the LABOR COMMISSIONER, then onto the courts if it goes that way………..
I think venessa has a good case, and so does Hollywood records…………………………….and if this case goes to court ALOT of managers/agents might be out of business, or watched real closely………. I don’t think Johny vieira wants that………..
what i said about everyone needs to make a buck, I was referring to, everyone needs a job, most everyone has bills to pay, and johnny vieira might end up paying vanessa’s legal bills………and so, johnny vieira might need to find a new job…………………………………unless he settles or DROPS this lawsuit……………………………..maybe i was wrong with my thoughts…….maybe i should have said, Johnny DROP the lawsuit…………………………………………..but that generally doesn’t work well, unless you have the entire legal case pointed out, POINT by POINT, legal authority by legal authority, case by case, with NO legal exit except for Dropping the case based on a frivelous and/or “malicious abuse of the legal process” action, and/or legal case presentation……………………………….and I am NOT there yet, and might not make it that far, with this legal argument………….and most of the times that i have looked into cases, alot of others have overlooked alot of issues…………………..
AGAIN - Do I think Johnny Vieira deserves any money? WELL - I haven’t looked at all the paperwork yet……….
What i do see is that Johnny Vieira is claiming the contract is void from the beginning, then goes on to try to enforce the contract as it is………………………………..SO, i see his case as real weak…………….BUT, i have’t seen the original contract yet, and it seems that the original contract is the only thing in dispute……………..
I see Vanessa’s Dad, and the claim againt him for defamation as laughable… it looks as if he was only asking LEGAL ADVICE, with the last phrase being something like “would this be a breach of contract”……….so, it is just a question, and NEVER PUBLISHED, just a private email, and i can say someone is a predator all day long ONLINE, and ALOT more people would see that, then just 1 or 2 in an email………………..Also, their must be monatary damage for a defamtion case to be valid, I believe……………………….and i don’t see NO monetary damage (whereas Johny Vieira losty any business from the email…..NONE……… but his bring this case to the light has probably cost him some…………………..so he has done more damage to himself, then any single email will ever do to him.
To VICKY — I agree, vanessa hasn’t done anything wrong, and the contract she signed as a kid is IMPORTANT…………….was their a Licensed Talent agent as a third party? Did she have an adult guardian also sign for her…………………those are real important questions….. because if she signed the contract all by herself, I DON’T see anyway how any judge, would accept it as valid…… or the initial decision, by the LABOR COMMISSIONER, who seems, to be in place, to protect the artist…………..
let me add, their is NO CRIME for being a sleezy talent agent, they just get more/less slime attached to them, and hopefully directed to go LICENSED, or do it right……..
I think I explained above at how vanessa’s dad is NOT liable, BUT AGAIN, those issues are decided by judges, and not me….. i just try to prepare some cases, in hopes of having them dismissed or resolved.
Good Luck Vanessa.
Let me add, if vanessa’s Dad’s letter was to his lawyer, and his lawyer somehow leaked that letter, after he was NOT paid…………….Then this could also be seen as a breach of lawyer client confidentiality…. and that is a serious breach, and i think, some judges take that breach very seriously…………….especially when the letter reads;
“Please help me here” (which seems to imply he is asking advice)
“I need a way LEGALLY where we could warn people of his predatary nature” (so it seems to be LEGAL advice)
“Could you post a phone number on the internet where people could call to check out her experience with producers on her CDs?”
(again, seems to be asking for LEGAL ADVICE, and it also seems that these emails were to a lawyer, who may have breached the confidentiality of a client)
“I am open to suggestions”
(again, seems to be asking legal advice)
“wouldn’t be a breach of contract”
(this may have been edited, because it doesn’t seem complete, it may have said ,’something that wouldn’t be a breach of contract’)….
—————-It seems to be just asking legal advice, with NO INTENT to do anything wrong……… it seems the INTENT was to do this legally, with an INTENT NOT to breach the contract………
—————So, I don’t really see much of any problem here, unless you have a real bad lawyer, and disney has a good legal team, but still, going to court is messy, especially dragging this Johnny Vieira into the limelight……………..JUST IMAGINE if alot of his former talent came up with some stories about him………………………..so, he has issues too, and i think, should take some chump change and go on his way………………………BUT, I AM NOT A LAWYER, so I can’t offer any LEGAL ADVICE…………………….but i can prepare a good case, and cook a mean steak.
let me end with this………………There is a legal issue called LEGAL MALPRACTICE….. it’s real hard to find any lawyer who will file suit against another lawyer, so finding these lawyers takes some time………………………… But, a breach of client attorney priveleges, in this case, may be seen as a LEGAL MALPRACTICE issue, as it relates to the defamation aspects of this case……………. vannessa seems to have a good legal team, and they are probably looking into this, hopefully they are……………………….it might NOT be much, but it adds to the weight of the case.
Good Luck Kid
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!