Case Summary

4852 REVIEW DENIED An action based on the claim that defendant acted as an unlicensed talent agent may not be brought until the claim is submitted to the Labor Commissioner, as required by the Talent Agencies Act (Labor Code sections 1700 et seq.), and this requirement cannot be avoided by suing for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, based on violation of the Talent Agencies Act; an action under the Unfair Competition Law based on violation of the Talent Agencies Act is subject to the one-year period of limitations for submission of such claims to the Labor Commissioner; a plaintiff who showed that as a result of his attorneys' attempt to sue the unlicensed agent without filing under the Talent Agencies Act on the theory that a violation of the Act was actionable under the Unfair Competition Law, and who also showed that as a result of the dismissal of that action he was unable to recover damages to which he otherwise be entitled to recover, has thereby established that the attorneys' professional negligence was a proximate cause of damage.

BLANKS v SEYFARTH SHAW (Unlicensed Agent) 171 CA4 336 [See: LabC 1700 etseq; B&PC 17200 etseq; Styne v Stevens 26 C4 42, P/AT 9/01; Wiley v County of SD 19 C4 532, T/AT 1/99; Viner v Sweet 30 C4 1232, T/AT 7/03; Marathon v Blasi 42 C4 974; Greenfield v Superior Court 106 CA4 743, P/AT 5/03]