Justices bang the gavel on TV judge
“Judge Alex” lost his case at the Supreme Court on Wednesday when the justices ruled that the star of the syndicated TV show must go before an arbiter to resolve his manager’s claim to 12% of his earnings.
In an 8-1 ruling, the high court rejected the notion that there was a special rule for the entertainment industry in California that allowed actors to bypass arbitration. Instead, the court said those who signed contracts agreeing to arbitrate must honor that deal and go to arbitration.
Alex Ferrer, a Florida state judge from Miami, was looking to start a career as a TV judge in 2002 when he signed a contract with Arnold Preston, a manager in Los Angeles. With Preston’s help, Ferrer had several interviews with TV executives.
“They took a liking to him, and eventually he became ‘Judge Alex,’ ” Preston said Wednesday. “But at some point, he stopped returning my calls.”
When Preston sought arbitration to obtain the fee set in the contract, Ferrer went to court in Los Angeles. He argued that under California’s Talent Agencies Act, the state’s Labor Commission should decide whether Preston broke the law by working as an unlicensed talent agent.
A Superior Court judge in Los Angeles and a state Court of Appeal ruled for Ferrer. The dispute should go first to the state commission, the state judges said.
Preston then appealed to the Supreme Court and won a ruling Wednesday holding that the Federal Arbitration Act trumps California’s law regulating talent agents.
“We hold today that when parties agree to arbitrate, all questions arising under a contract, state laws lodging primary jurisdiction in another forum, whether judicial or administrative, are superseded by the FAA,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
The court wasted little time deciding Preston vs. Ferrer. It was argued before the justices only a month ago.
Now the dispute goes back to where it should have been from the beginning, Preston said. “This case is a good example of why arbitration is favored. You don’t have all this drawn-out litigation,” he said.
Ferrer said in a statement that he had followed California legal precedent, which said the labor commissioner “was best suited to determine whether Mr. Preston violated the Talent Agencies Act.”
“Nonetheless, I respect the Supreme Court’s decision and look forward to prevailing on the merits.”
The lone dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas. He has consistently disagreed with the majority’s view that the Federal Arbitration Act, passed in 1925, was intended to trump state laws. He said the measure regulated interstate shippers, not in-state disputes.
“Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the [California] court of appeals,” he said.
--
