Styne v. Stevens

Styne (plaintiff) was the personal manager of Stevens (defendant) and was entitled to receive 10 percent commission on all gross monies earned from professional engagements that he secured for Stevens under their contract. Styne devoted much of his efforts to obtain a deal with the Home Shopping Network (HSN) to feature Stevens selling her line of cosmetics products. Styne initiated contact with HSN on Stevens’s behalf, promoted her skills and image, and scheduled a meeting between HSN and Stevens that led to the eventual deal. Stevens made numerous sales of cosmetics products with HSN but refused to compensate Styne for his share of the profits when demanded. Styne filed suit for breach of contract. Over a year later, Stevens moved for summary judgment on grounds that the contract was void because Styne was not licensed and his efforts to obtain the deal with HSN amounted to procurement requiring a license under the California Talent Agencies Act. Styne argued that Steven’s act-based defense failed because it was within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner and had nevertheless been waived because she failed to raise the defense within the act’s one-year statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and denied Stevens’s motion for summary judgment, as well as her request for a jury instruction on the requirements of the act. Following an adverse judgment, Stevens moved for a new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing her requested instruction because it would have allowed the jury to void the contract for violation of the act if it found that Styne’s efforts amounted to procurement. The trial court agreed and granted Stevens’s motion for new trial. The court of appeal reversed the order for new trial after concluding that all controversies arising under the act, including Stevens’s act-based defense, must first be submitted to the Labor Commissioner, and that it had nevertheless been waived because she failed to raise the defense within the act’s one-year statute of limitations. Stevens appealed.