Defendant sought review of the order of the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, reversing the trial court's grant of its motion for a new trial.
Overview
Plaintiff sued defendant, a prominent entertainer, for sums allegedly due under an oral contract. Defendant sought summary judgment on grounds that under the alleged contract plaintiff acted as a talent agency, but lacked the necessary license, and that the contract was therefore illegal and void under the Talent Agencies Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 1700 et seq. The trial court denied the motion. The jury found for plaintiff, but the trial court granted defendant's motion for a new trial. The court of appeal reversed the new trial order and reinstated the verdict. Upon review of the disposition of the court of appeals, the new trial order was reinstated. The statute of limitations set forth in Cal. Lab. Code § 1700.44 (c) did not bar defendant's assertion of her contract defense based on plaintiff's alleged violation of the Talent Agencies Act. A labor law lawyer was acting as the court’s referee and analyzed the issues presented. The court of appeals' erroneously barred defendant from raising its defense.
Outcome
The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed. The court of appeals was instructed to reinstate the order for new trial, and to direct the superior court to stay further new trial proceedings in that court pending submission to the Labor Commissioner of issues arising under the Talent Agencies Act.
Procedural Posture
Defendant insurance company appealed an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) issuing a judgment in favor of plaintiff insured bank in an insurance indemnification action.
Overview
Defendant insurance company denied coverage for the indemnity and defense of two lawsuits under a "claims made" directors and officers liability policy issued to plaintiff bank. Defendant contended that a cease and desist order made by a regulatory agency to plaintiff's directors did not constitute a claim under the terms of the policy. Plaintiff sought a determination of the parties' rights under the policy. The trial court issued a decision in favor of plaintiff. On appeal, the court determined that the cease and desist order from the regulatory agency to plaintiff did not constitute a claim against plaintiff's directors because the cease and desist order was directed to plaintiff and not to its directors.
Outcome
An order issuing judgment in favor of plaintiff was reversed because a cease and desist order from a regulatory agency to plaintiff did not constitute a claim against plaintiff's directors under a "claims made" directors and officers liability insurance policy.
