Park v. Deftones
California Court of Appeal
71 Cal. App. 4th 1465, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 616 (1999)
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Dave Park (plaintiff) served as personal manager for the Deftones (defendants) and, pursuant to their management agreements (the agreements), was entitled to receive 20 percent commission on all income earned from engagements that he secured for the band. After Park secured a recording agreement for the band with Maverick Records, the Deftones terminated Park’s services. Park thereafter brought suit against the Deftones for breach of contract, alleging that he was owed certain commissions under the agreements that he never received. The Deftones, in turn, filed a petition with the Labor Commissioner to void those agreements. The Labor Commissioner determined that Park had violated the California Talent Agencies Act when he obtained more than 80 engagements for the Deftones without a license and deemed the agreements null, void, and unenforceable. Park appealed the Labor Commissioner’s determination to the superior court. Park admitted that he had obtained more than 80 engagements for the Deftones but argued that a license was not required because his goal in obtaining those engagements was incidental to securing a recording agreement for the band (the act contained an exception for procuring a recording contract) and because he never received a commission. The trial court found in favor of the Deftones, and Park appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
