Plaintiff employment agency appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that dismissed its complaint alleging that defendant cameraman breached an employment agency contract. The trial court held that the agency did not first pursue its remedies before the state labor commissioner as required by Cal. Labor Code § 1647, and therefore its complaint was premature.
Overview: caci 3900
The agency’s complaint consisted of three counts. The first alleged that the cameraman wrongfully withheld payment of fees that had accrued under the employment contract. The second alleged that the wrongful discharge of the agency deprived it of expected earnings over rest of the life of the employment contract. The third restated counts one and two as a single count. The court upheld the dismissal of count one, but reversed as to count two, and that portion of count three that restated count two. The court set the boundary line with respect to the Cal. Labor Code § 1647 use of the words, all cases of controversy arising under this chapter. The court found that count one was a controversy that arose under Cal. Labor Code §§ 1550–1649 and that must have been first referred to the labor commission because it was based upon a previously operative employment contract. In contrast count two, and the relevant portion of three, sought damages on the basis that the employment contract had been terminated and was no longer operative, except for purposes of determining damages.
Outcome
The court reversed the dismissal of the agency’s complaint as to those counts that alleged it was entitled to damages from the cameraman’s wrongful breach of an employment contract. But the court affirmed the dismissal of a count that proceeded under a theory that the agency was entitled to damages for fees that had accrued before the employment contract was not terminated by the cameraman.
