Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amicus Brief submitted by SAG-AFTRA/DGA/WGA and my Comments

Amicus Brief submitted by SAG-AFTRA/DGA/WGA and my Comments

Ratings: (0)|Views: 81|Likes:
Published by rick7562
SAG/AFTRA, the DGA and the WGA have banded together to file an Amicus Brief in support of the current enforcement of the TAA. My comments are as follows:
pg 9: so what works fine for all other states can't work for California? Why aren't they asking other states for regulations?
Pg 10: none of this has to do with managers, and in fact it's not uncommon for those entering any profession to work under such conditions.
Pg 11: generalization that falls apart with specifics
Pg 11: but it doesn't limit procurement to licensees, that's the point of this suit.
Pg 12: this is why attorneys need to be supportive of the NCOPM's efforts
Pg 13: so the personal managers hire the agents and supervise them but don't get involved in procurement that's irrational
Pg 15: nope, that's all camacho did, all that Park did
Pg 16: and when there is no others interested, who protects their clients interest then?
Pg 17: creating a better sales product has nothing to do with procurement?
Pg 18: except Buchwald, as the reply brief will make clear, is bad law; the court misinterpreted five precedents to make its holding
Pg 19: where does this clear? You can't just say something to make it so
Pg 21: The only relevant thing legislatively re the CEC Report, according to Marathon Court , is the recommendations, and their brief speaks about the discussion and conclusions of the Commission. And they recommended that the penalties that had been repealed not be reignited; and in the section they're quoting from you get an understanding of the reasoning, no legislative intent can be found. So the non legislative committee's conclusions are irrelevent, but even so, they concluded and recommended that there should be no prohibitionary statute or penalty provision.
pg 22: the conclusions are contradictary and irrelevant. What matters is the recommendations, that's what the legislature adopted.
Pg 23: Waisbren is mooted by Marathon
Pg 24: 1700.4(a) only defines what an agent does, it doesn't prohibit anything
Pg 25: something we should have, but it shouldn't be 50K which does no good to anyone, but related to held monies by the representative
Pg 26: that's ridiculous. What agency isn't holding 50K of clients monies at any one time? and not true, they go to the Labor Commissioner
pg 26: There is nothing in the legislative history of the Act that says artists deserve greater rights than others who may not have the wherewithal to pursue remedies in a court
pg 27: so if manager holds back money, the artist has no recourse? They would ask a court to be made whole
pg 28: hmmm.... the CA ent "commission was organized in early 1983 (pg 3) and submitted its report in December of 1985. (pg 1) And after studying the Act for three years, the commission found that "no clear legislative intent can be discerned" relevant to whether one needed a license to procure employment for an artist."
pg 28: this is a flat out lie.
pg 28: engage in activities that are completely lawful but have been enforced wrongly as unlawful. There is no law, it's a myth.
pg 29: unless they'd actually read the TAA and took it on its face.
pg 29: this is true. And per Marathon, all of these courts were incorrect.
pg 30: except there are clear signs that say how fast you can go and statutes clearly defining what the consequences are if the speeder does get caught. If the TAA had a prohibition statute and a penalty provision, then this analogy would have merit.
Pg 31: true. And this case will show that this finding is unsupportable because it is based upon Buchwald which was bad law, and was done despite the lack of a prohibition or penalty provision relevant to licensing, it violates the interstate commerce provision, the contract clause, etc...
Pg 33: can one negotiate contracts, one of the major defining activities of an attorney, without a license? How do you know?
Pg 34: I ask the Amici what could possibly be repealed to make what they claim is unlawful and make it lawful? If t
SAG/AFTRA, the DGA and the WGA have banded together to file an Amicus Brief in support of the current enforcement of the TAA. My comments are as follows:
pg 9: so what works fine for all other states can't work for California? Why aren't they asking other states for regulations?
Pg 10: none of this has to do with managers, and in fact it's not uncommon for those entering any profession to work under such conditions.
Pg 11: generalization that falls apart with specifics
Pg 11: but it doesn't limit procurement to licensees, that's the point of this suit.
Pg 12: this is why attorneys need to be supportive of the NCOPM's efforts
Pg 13: so the personal managers hire the agents and supervise them but don't get involved in procurement that's irrational
Pg 15: nope, that's all camacho did, all that Park did
Pg 16: and when there is no others interested, who protects their clients interest then?
Pg 17: creating a better sales product has nothing to do with procurement?
Pg 18: except Buchwald, as the reply brief will make clear, is bad law; the court misinterpreted five precedents to make its holding
Pg 19: where does this clear? You can't just say something to make it so
Pg 21: The only relevant thing legislatively re the CEC Report, according to Marathon Court , is the recommendations, and their brief speaks about the discussion and conclusions of the Commission. And they recommended that the penalties that had been repealed not be reignited; and in the section they're quoting from you get an understanding of the reasoning, no legislative intent can be found. So the non legislative committee's conclusions are irrelevent, but even so, they concluded and recommended that there should be no prohibitionary statute or penalty provision.
pg 22: the conclusions are contradictary and irrelevant. What matters is the recommendations, that's what the legislature adopted.
Pg 23: Waisbren is mooted by Marathon
Pg 24: 1700.4(a) only defines what an agent does, it doesn't prohibit anything
Pg 25: something we should have, but it shouldn't be 50K which does no good to anyone, but related to held monies by the representative
Pg 26: that's ridiculous. What agency isn't holding 50K of clients monies at any one time? and not true, they go to the Labor Commissioner
pg 26: There is nothing in the legislative history of the Act that says artists deserve greater rights than others who may not have the wherewithal to pursue remedies in a court
pg 27: so if manager holds back money, the artist has no recourse? They would ask a court to be made whole
pg 28: hmmm.... the CA ent "commission was organized in early 1983 (pg 3) and submitted its report in December of 1985. (pg 1) And after studying the Act for three years, the commission found that "no clear legislative intent can be discerned" relevant to whether one needed a license to procure employment for an artist."
pg 28: this is a flat out lie.
pg 28: engage in activities that are completely lawful but have been enforced wrongly as unlawful. There is no law, it's a myth.
pg 29: unless they'd actually read the TAA and took it on its face.
pg 29: this is true. And per Marathon, all of these courts were incorrect.
pg 30: except there are clear signs that say how fast you can go and statutes clearly defining what the consequences are if the speeder does get caught. If the TAA had a prohibition statute and a penalty provision, then this analogy would have merit.
Pg 31: true. And this case will show that this finding is unsupportable because it is based upon Buchwald which was bad law, and was done despite the lack of a prohibition or penalty provision relevant to licensing, it violates the interstate commerce provision, the contract clause, etc...
Pg 33: can one negotiate contracts, one of the major defining activities of an attorney, without a license? How do you know?
Pg 34: I ask the Amici what could possibly be repealed to make what they claim is unlawful and make it lawful? If t

More info:

Published by: rick7562 on Dec 14, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/16/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 13-55545 I
N
T
HE
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT N
ATIONAL
C
ONFERENCE OF
P
ERSONAL
M
ANAGERS
,
 
I
NC
.
 Plaintiff 
 — 
 Appellant, v.
E
DMUND
G.
 
B
ROWN
,
 
J
.
 
ET AL
,
 Defendants
 — 
 Appellees.
O
 N APPEAL FROM THE
U
 NITED
S
TATES
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT FOR THE
C
ENTRAL
D
ISTRICT OF
C
ALIFORNIA
T
HE
H
ONORABLE
D
EAN
D.
 
P
REGERSON
,
 
J
UDGE
,
 
P
RESIDING
D
ISTRICT
C
OURT
C
ASE
 N
O
.
 
CV
 
12-09620
 
DDP
 
(RZ
X
)
Brief of
 Amici Curiae
 in Support of Defendants-Appellees by Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television & Radio Artists, Directors Guild of America, Inc. and Writers Guild of America, West, Inc.
 
A
 NTHONY
R.
 
S
EGALL
 
OTHNER 
,
 
S
EGALL
&
 
G
REENSTONE
 510
 
S. Marengo Avenue Pasadena, CA
 
91101 Telephone: (626) 796-7555 Fax:
 
(626)
 
577-0124
Counsel for Writers Guild of America, West, Inc.
 
D
AVID
B.
 
D
REYFUS
 D
IRECTORS
G
UILD OF
A
MERICA
,
 
I
 NC
. 7920 Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90046 Telephone: (310) 289-2012
Counsel for Directors Guild of America, Inc.
 D
UNCAN
W.
 
C
RABTREE
-I
RELAND
 D
ANIELLE
S.
 
V
AN
L
IER
S
CREEN
A
CTORS
G
UILD
-A
MERICAN
F
EDERATION OF
T
ELEVISION AND
ADIO
A
RTISTS
 5757 Wilshire Blvd., 7
th
 Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (323) 549-6627 Facsimile: (323) 549-6624
Counsel for SAG-AFTRA and Counsel of Record for Amici
Case: 13-55545 12/13/2013 ID: 8901747 DktEntry: 28 Page: 1 of 39
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Case: 13-55545 12/13/2013 ID: 8901747 DktEntry: 28 Page: 2 of 39
 
 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES
 
 Baron v. Los Angeles
, 2 Cal.3d 535 (1970) ...........................................................27
 Buchwald v. Superior Court,
 254 Cal. App. 2d 347 (1967) ............................. 12, 13 Cal. Lab. Code §1700.26 ......................................................................................19
Greenlake Capital v. Bingo Investments,
 185 Cal. App. 4th 731 (2010) ................29
 Marathon Entertainment Inc. v. Blasi
, 42 Cal. 4th 974 (2008) ....................... passim
 MKB Management, Inc. v. Melikian,
 184 Cal.App.4th 796 (2010) ........................29
 Park v. Deftones
, 71 Cal. App. 4th 1465 (1999) .............................................. 11, 23
 People v. Merchants Protective Corp.
, 189 Cal. 531 (1922) .................................27
Venturi & Co. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp.,
 172 Cal. App. 4th 1417 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) .................................................................................................................29
Waisbren, v. Peppercorn Productions, Inc.,
 
41
 
Cal. App.
 
4th 246
 
(1995) ....... passim
Yoo. v. Robi
, 126 Cal. App. 4
th
 1089 (2005) ..........................................................23
STATUTES
 
Cal Bus & Prof Code § 6000,
et seq
. .....................................................................27 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2052(a) .........................................................................26 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §10130 ....................................................................... 27, 28 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §10131 .............................................................................28 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §6125 ...............................................................................27 Cal. Lab. Code §1700.15 ......................................................................................18 Cal. Lab. Code §1700.21 ......................................................................................19 Cal. Lab. Code §1700.23 ......................................................................................19 Cal. Lab. Code §1700.24 ......................................................................................19 Cal. Lab. Code §1700.26 ......................................................................................19 Cal. Lab. Code §1700.27 ......................................................................................19 Cal. Lab. Code §1700.4 .................................................................................. 13, 18 Cal. Lab. Code §1700.44 ......................................................................................14
Case: 13-55545 12/13/2013 ID: 8901747 DktEntry: 28 Page: 3 of 39

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->