LOS ANGELES—A pair of recent court actions in California ultimately found that unauthorized agency booking fees charged by talent agencies in adult entertainment and all other entertainment sectors are unlawful under the state's Talent Agencies Act (TAA).
The two cases are Nicole Doshi v. Motley Models and Jane Does 1-5 v. Derek Hay.
As AVN reported last May, performer Nicole Doshi sued the former owner of Motley Models, agent Dave Rock, for contract disputes in the California Labor Commission. Rock's attorney, Richard Freeman, explained to AVN Monday that he and Rock made the "practical decision" to "throw in the towel" in the case.
He explained that a case where he represented Derek Hay, the talent agent who owned the now-defunct LA Direct Models, was found to be a governing element to the motion to dismiss the case, especially on the front of booking fees.
"Once the judge in the Direct Models case had decided the issues on the validity of the contract and the issues related to booking fees, there was just one more decision, this one from a court of record, the Superior Court of California, that was relative to these issues that was going to be challenging to overcome," Freeman said.
At issue in the Doshi case was how Rock, through his agency, violated the fiduciary responsibility provisions of the Talent Agencies Act by collecting booking fees that adult industry attorney Allan Gelbard, who represented Doshi in the case, successfully argued were unlawful under the act.
Rock and Motley were ordered to reimburse Doshi $25,875 in commissions paid to the agency, $10,850 for booking fees and added interest, $16,208 in attorney fees, and $261.24 in other costs. The ruling was ordered on April 30, 2024.
Freeman and Motley motioned to dismiss an appeal they made to civil court during a status conference on May 29.
"The Doshi v. Motley Models case is now final," Gelbard told AVN today. "There will be a new motion for attorney’s fees and costs, but the bottom line is the holding from the Labor Commission is now a final and citable authority" in court cases moving forward.
"Booking fees charged by agencies are illegal and a breach of fiduciary duty as a matter of law," Gelbard said. "The commissioner also disapproved of the few older booking fees cases that some have been arguing allowed them."
In the 2024 "Determination of Controversy" ruling issued by the Labor Commission in the Doshi case, the hearing officer in the case noted, "'Allowing licensed agents to use unapproved contracts without consequence, invites unregulated conduct' that undermined the purpose of the TAA, 'to protect artists from unregulated activity.'
"Even when an agent believes in good faith that they do not have to disclose contract terms to the Labor Commissioner’s Office, failing to disclose such terms still conflicts with the purpose of the TAA to protect artists from onerous or unfair contracts," the Doshi ruling reads.
A similar determination was reached in the protracted civil case Gelbard led against Hay.
A civil court in Los Angeles issued a final judgment against Hay and LA Direct Models for violating California labor codes and the state TAA.
According to a court order dated May 13 viewed by AVN, Hay is liable to pay actresses, who filed an initial labor complaint against him, $66,730.93 in disgorgement for damages, including unlawfully acquired booking fees that violate the TAA. The five actresses involved in the case originally accused Hay of labor code violations in 2018, filing a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner’s Office.
The performers were initially anonymous “Jane Does” in filing the complaint with the state, but later revealed themselves to be Charlotte Cross, Sofi Ryan, Andi Rye, Hadley Viscara, and Shay Evans.
As the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School notes, disgorgement is a legal remedy "requiring a party who profits from illegal or wrongful acts to give up any profits they made as a result of that illegal or wrongful conduct." This means that all five of the performers are entitled to the proceeds Hay received at the cost of violating their labor rights under the California labor code and the TAA; he'll have to pay back the money he earned via the booking fees with interest.
Initially, the total disgorgement was tallied at $39,488.49. But due to the length of the litigation, about seven years, it gained 10 percent interest each year, totaling a sum of over $60,000, according to attorney Gelbard, who served as counsel for the five performers.
Gelbard has filed a post-judgment motion against Hay, he said, to recover certain losses and attorneys' fees. It is worth noting that Freeman took issue with Gelbard lobbying the court for what he regards as such an aggressive sum—a total of over $560,000.
Freeman, who also represented Hay as noted above, told AVN, "The biggest issue with regard to the Does' claims has yet to be decided, and that is in a case that deals with $30,000 to $40,000 worth of fees; attorney Gelbard is making a claim for over $500,000 in attorneys fees."
A hearing was held on this issue in April, Freeman said. But he added that the judge at the time highlighted that Gelbard had yet to provide a statutory justification for such an ask of the court. Gelbard was given leave to justify the case, which is the hearing scheduled this summer to discuss the matter.
