California Codes
Cal. Labor Code § 1700 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter, “person” means any individual, company, society, firm, partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, manager, or their agents or employees.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008).
Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008). “Preston's demand for arbitration, made in June 2005, was countered a month later by Ferrer's petition to the California Labor Commissioner charging that the contract was invalid and unenforceable under the California Talent Agencies Act (TAA), Cal. Lab.Code Ann. § 1700 et seq.…”
Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 171 Cal. App. 4th 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “1 The issues raised require us to discuss the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner in cases involving the Talent Agencies Act (Lab. Code, § 1700 et seq.; the TAA or the Act) as most recently decided by the Supreme Court in Styne v.”
Ferrer v. Preston, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10990 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “The Talent Agencies Act The Talent Agencies Act (Act) (Lab. Code, § 1700 et seq.) [1] regulates the activities of a "talent agency," i.”
LRN Holding, Inc. v. Windlake Capital Advisors, LLC, 949 N.E.2d 264 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “Judge Alex countered his attorney/agent's demand for arbitration by filing *269 a petition to the California labor commissioner charging that the contract was invalid and unenforceable under the California Talent Agencies Act (TAA) (Cal. Lab.Code § 1700 et seq. (West 2003 & Supp.”
Marathon Ent., Inc. v. Blasi, 174 P.3d 741 (Cal. 2008). “(Marathon), the strictures of the Talent Agencies Act (Lab. Code, § 1700 et seq.) (Act) apply to managers as well as agents; (2) contrary to the arguments of actress Rosa Blasi (Blasi), while the Labor Commissioner has the authority to void manager-talent contracts ab initio for…”
Fair v. Bakhtiari, 195 Cal. App. 4th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). “Marathon found nothing in the act repudiating the generally applicable rule of severability. Therefore, it concluded that severability was available, but not mandatory.”
Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, 247 P.3d 130 (Cal. 2011). “) The Labor Conimissioner did not participate in the appeal, nor in proceedings before this court. During the briefing period, the United States Supreme Court decided Preston , which held that the Labor Commissioner’s original and exclusive jurisdiction under the Talent Agencies…”
Chiba v. Greenwald, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “On review, Marathon presents the following issues: "(1) Are the licensing requirements of the Talent Agencies Act (Lab.Code section 1700 et seq.) applicable to personal business managers as well as talent agents? (2) Is the doctrine of severability of contracts applicable to…”
Berg v. Traylor, 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2863 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “They argue that the award must be vacated because the arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing despite sufficient cause being shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.2, subd. (a)(5).”
MKB Mgmt., Inc. v. Melikian, 184 Cal. App. 4th 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “4th 974 , relating to the Talent Agencies Act (Lab. Code, § 1700 et seq.). The plaintiff in Marathon was a personal manager that had acted as a talent agency without the required license.”
Greenlake Capital, LLC v. Bingo Investments, LLC, 185 Cal. App. 4th 731 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “) After reviewing the language and legislative history of the Talent Agencies Act, the Supreme Court concluded personal managers “remain exempt from regulation insofar as they do those things that personal managers do, but they are regulated under the Act to the extent they…”
Yoo v. Robi, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “The principal issues in Wolf’s appeal are whether Wolf violated the Talent Agencies Act (Lab. Code § 1700 et seq.) by procuring performance engagements for Robi without being licensed as a talent agency and, if so, whether such violation of the Act bars Wolf’s recovery of a…”
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.