The Guilds and ATA submit amicus briefs
ri...@marathonent.com
Opposing Marathon is the Association of Talent Agents, the CA Labor
Commission, and a single brief was submitted by all the Guilds.
Supporting Marathon is the National Conference of Personal Managers,
the Talent Managers' Association, and the National Association of
Artists' Managers.
There is one basic argument that our opponents keep raising: that
Marathon is trying to change long established enforcement.
Interestingly, none of their briefs discuss our version of the facts
explaining why the long established enforcement is wrong. Even more
interestingly, only one of the three opposing briefs even discusses
the issue the Court agreed to review for us, that as managers are not
mentioned in the Act and the legislative history clear shows that
personal managers were exempted from the Act, that no court or labor
commission can now subject us to the Act's tenets. I guess if you
have no way to contradict, you simply ignore the argument.
Two of the briefs for us concentrate on how severance must be
incorporated, using arguments we had previously raised and presenting
some new and compelling legal rationale.
The third, from NCOPM, not only reiterates Marathon's position on
applicability but adds an important new element to the discussion:
that as only Californians can get a talent agency license, the Act
creates a two-tier system which interferes with interstate commerce
and as such is unconstitutional.
Amicus briefs must be accepted by the Supreme Court; if and when they
are accepted, we will have 20 days to respond. As their arguments had
added little to the debate, so our response will be rather elemental.
>From there the Court will start to formulate their opinions, which
will lead to the oral arguments (hopefully in May or June but could be
longer), followed by a decision some 30-60 days thereafter. And from
that day on, you'll know that when your clients make money, you will
too.
Best,
Rick