(a)In cases of controversy arising under this chapter, the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner, who shall hear and determine the same, subject to an appeal within 10 days after determination, to the superior court where the same shall be heard de novo. To stay any award for money, the party aggrieved shall execute a bond approved by the superior court in a sum not exceeding twice the amount of the judgment. In all other cases the bond shall be in a sum of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) and approved by the superior court.
The Labor Commissioner may certify without a hearing that there is no controversy within the meaning of this section if he or she has by investigation established that there is no dispute as to the amount of the fee due. Service of the certification shall be made upon all parties concerned by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested and the certification shall become conclusive 10 days after the date of mailing if no objection has been filed with the Labor Commissioner during that period.
(b)Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, failure of any person to obtain a license from the Labor Commissioner pursuant to this chapter shall not be considered a criminal act under any law of this state.
(c)No action or proceeding shall be brought pursuant to this chapter with respect to any violation which is alleged to have occurred more than one year prior to commencement of the action or proceeding.
(d)It is not unlawful for a person or corporation which is not licensed pursuant to this chapter to act in conjunction with, and at the request of, a licensed talent agency in the negotiation of an employment contract.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case:
Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 171 Cal. App. 4th 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 171 Cal. App. 4th 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 7× “We are also called upon to discuss the effect of Seyfarth’s failure to file a petition with the commissioner within the Act’s one-year statute of limitations (Lab. Code, § 1700.44, subd. (c)), and the doctrine of severability of contracts applied to the TAA as addressed in…”
Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008).
· cites it 2× “The appeals court held that the relevant provision of the TAA, Cal. Lab.Code Ann. § 1700.44(a) (West 2003), vests "exclusive original jurisdiction" over the dispute in the Labor Commissioner.”
Marathon Ent., Inc. v. Blasi, 174 P.3d 741 (Cal. 2008).
“3d 343 ]; Lab. Code, § 1700.44, subd. (a).) All further undesignated statutory references are to the Labor Code.”
Waisbren v. Peppercorn Prods., Inc., 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9734 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “The Labor Commissioner’s Interpretation of the Act The Labor Commissioner, who is statutorily charged with enforcing the Act (Lab. Code, § 1700.44, subd. (a)), has long taken the position that a license is required for incidental procurement activities.”
Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (S.D. Cal. 2014).
“The court explained the general rule that the UCL claims has a four year statute of limitations does not apply because the TAA vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the Labor Commissioner, see Cal. Labor Code § 1700.44 (c), and imposes a one-year limitations period as a…”
Greenfield v. Superior Court, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1757 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The Labor Commissioner stated, “The petitioner has failed to establish that commissions were paid during the one-year statute of limitations prescribed by Labor Code [section] 1700.”
Buchwald v. Katz, 503 P.2d 1376 (Cal. 1972).
“The superior court “Ordered that the motion be granted and that the amount of the undertaking to be executed and filed in this action under State of California Labor Code section 1700.44 be $49,500.”
Bacall v. Shumway CA2/8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” (Lab. Code, § 1700.44, subd. (d).) According to Appellants, this provision gave them the right to perform all the services that the arbitrator concluded constituted the unlicensed practice of law, such as corresponding with attorneys, redlining agreements, and making comments…”
Bacall v. Shumway (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” (Lab. Code, § 1700.44, subd. (d).) According to Appellants, this provision gave them the right to perform all the services that the arbitrator concluded constituted the unlicensed practice of law, such as corresponding with attorneys, redlining agreements, and making comments…”
Villanueva v. Fid. Nat'l Title Co. (Cal. 2021).
· cites it 2× “, Lab. Code, § 1700.44, subd. (a) [exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Labor Commissioner, with review by way of trial de novo in superior court]).”
— Cal. Labor Code § 1700.44(a) — 1 case
Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008).
“The appeals court held that the relevant provision of the TAA, Cal. Lab.Code Ann. § 1700.44(a) (West 2003), vests "exclusive original jurisdiction" over the dispute in the Labor Commissioner.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.