## Facts

- Dave Park entered written personal management agreements with the band Deftones in 1992, 1993, and 1994, providing for commission-based compensation tied to the band’s earnings.
- Park performed management services and also obtained live performance engagements for the band and assisted in securing a recording contract with Maverick Records.
- After the recording deal, the band terminated Park and stopped paying commissions; Park sued the band for breach of contract and sued Maverick Records and an executive for intentional interference with contractual relations.
- The band filed a petition with the California Labor Commissioner seeking to void the management agreements under the Talent Agencies Act (TAA) on the ground that Park procured engagements without a talent agency license.
- The Labor Commissioner found Park procured performance engagements on 84 occasions without a license and declared the management agreements null, void, and unenforceable.
- Park sought a trial de novo, while defendants moved for summary judgment in the civil action on the theory that the agreements were void under the TAA.
- Park conceded he obtained more than 80 engagements and lacked a talent agency license, but argued procurement was incidental to broader management and recording-contract efforts and that he did not commission certain live engagements.

## Issues

1. Whether Park’s unlicensed procurement of live performance engagements constituted a TAA violation that rendered the personal management agreements void and unenforceable.
2. Whether Park could avoid voidness by characterizing procurement as incidental to management services or to obtaining a recording contract, or by asserting he did not take commissions on the live engagements.
3. Whether the asserted voidness defeated Park’s claims for breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- Park’s repeated procurement of performance engagements without a talent agency license violated the TAA.
- The personal management agreements were properly treated as null, void, and unenforceable.
- Because no enforceable contract existed, Park’s breach of contract claim failed.
- For the same reason, the interference claim against Maverick Records and its executive failed because there was no valid contract to support the tort.

## Legal Principles

- Under the TAA, a person who procures, offers, promises, or attempts to procure employment or engagements for an artist must be licensed as a talent agency.
- Unlicensed procurement of artists’ engagements can render a personal management contract void and unenforceable, even when the manager provides other legitimate management services.
- Claims dependent on the existence of a valid contract (including breach of contract and interference with contractual relations) fail when the underlying agreement is void under the TAA.
- The licensing inquiry focuses on the act of procuring engagements; lack of a commission on specific engagements does not preclude a TAA violation.

## Conclusion

The court held that a personal manager who repeatedly procures an artist’s live performance engagements without a talent agency license violates the Talent Agencies Act, making the management agreements void and barring recovery of commissions or contract-based tort claims predicated on those agreements.


Park v. Deftones, 71 Cal. App. 4th 1465, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 616 (Ct. App. 1999)