From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Wachs v. Curry
California Court of Appeal
16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 496, 13 Cal. App. 4th 616 (1993)
In 1990 Arsenio Hall sued Robert Wachs and X Management (plaintiffs) for procuring employment for Hall without a license. In 1987 Hall had signed a contract with X Management, a personal management firm, run by Robert Wachs and Mark Lipsky. The contract indicated that X Management was not being engaged as a talent agent and had no obligation to procure employment for Hall. Hall alleged that Wachs told him that Wachs’s commission would be 15 percent and that Hall would not need a talent agent. For the next three years, X Management secured significant contracts for Hall, such as Hall’s role in the movie Coming to America, The Arsenio Hall Show, and other hosting and endorsement deals. X Management received $2.62 million in commissions, reflecting the agreed-on 15 percent rate. However, when Hall learned that Wachs and Lipsky were also receiving credit as producers on Hall’s television show and receiving $5,000 per week for production, Hall ended the agreement. Hall brought a claim before the labor commissioner, James Curry (defendant), alleging that the contract with X Management was void from the beginning because the company was procuring employment on Hall’s behalf as a talent agent without a license, in violation of the Talent Agencies Act (the act). The act carried civil penalties. The labor commissioner agreed and ordered Wachs and Lipsky to return $2.12 million to Hall. Wachs and X Management sought appellate review and claimed the act was unconstitutional for lack of a rational basis for excluding only recording contracts from its licensure requirement for procuring employment for artists and also for vagueness or ambiguity. In fact, the California legislature commissioned a two-year study of the act. The commission issued a report citing reasons for maintaining the exemption. A trial court upheld the constitutionality of the act and granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 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.