California Court of Appeal

In a legal malpractice action brought by Billy Blanks, the developer of the "Tae Bo" fitness routine, a judgment in favor of plaintiff-Blanks is reversed and remanded where the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to instruct that the original agreement between plaintiff and his former counsel was subject to the doctrine of severability, and erred by addressing a subject not presented in a motion in limine. The court of appeals further rules that: 1) plaintiffs seeking affirmative relief under the Talent Agency Act must bring their cases to the Labor Commissioner within the Act's one-year statute of limitations and cannot rely on the longer statute contained in the Unfair Competition Law; 2) the discovery rule cannot extend the Act's statute of limitations in this case; and 3) the issue of "judgmental immunity" must be addressed on remand.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/20/2009
• Published 02/20/2009

Judges

• ALDRICH, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Moscarino & Connolly, John M. Moscarino, Joseph Connolly, and Paula C. Greenspan, Los Angeles;  Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Kent L. Richland, Barbara W. Ravitz, Peter O. Israel, Los Angeles, and Alana B. Hoffman, for Seyfath Shaw, Defendant and Appellant., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Daniel M. Kolkey, Kevin S. Rosen, William E. Thomson, Los Angeles, and Dominic Lanza, for William H. Lancaster, Defendant and Appellant., Law Offices of James R. Rosen, James R. Rosen, and Adela Carrasco, Beverly Hills;  Esner, Chang & Ellis, Stuart B. Esner, Los Angeles, and Gregory R. Ellis, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.