Actress, Lisa Kudrow, “Pheobe” On Friends, Was Sued By Her Personal Manager. The Manager’s Expert’s Declaration In Opposition To Kudrow’s Motion For Summary Judgment Raised Questions Of Fact; Summary Judgment Reversed.

An entertainer (Lisa Kudrow) terminated the services of her personal manager, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the entertainer after the manager brought a breach of contract action claiming he should continue to receive a percentage of her income pursuant to custom and usage in the industry. The trial judge excluded the declaration of the manager’s expert on the ground of lack of foundation. The declaration said that it had been the custom and practice in the entertainment industry for a personal manager to be paid post-termination commissions on the services that their clients rendered, and on engagements that their clients entered into, when the personal manager was representing them. After the entertainer filed objections to the declaration, the manager asked for a continuance for the purpose of filing an amended declaration. The trial court denied the request for continuance, stating “it could not think of any reason why it would be in [its] discretion to do so.” In the first appeal, the Court of Appeal remanded with directions to the trial court to exercise its discretion to determine if the manager was entitled to a continuance. Upon remand, the trial court found the expert’s amended declaration to be deficient and again granted summary judgment in favor of the entertainer.

In its second opinion, the Court of Appeal discussed the expert’s declaration, stating:  “Bauer’s experience in and knowledge of the entertainment industry is adequate for him to render an opinion on specific practices, even if he was not a personal manager at the time of the agreement in issue. Our Supreme Court in the medical malpractice context has noted that medical doctors in recent years are qualified to render opinions in areas not their precise specialty. (Mann v. Cracchiolo, (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 37, [694 P.2d 1134, 1144; 210 Cal.Rptr. 762, 772]). ‘Where a witness has disclosed sufficient knowledge, the question of the degree of knowledge goes more to the weight of the evidence than its admissibility.’ (Ibid.) A ‘court will be deemed to have abused its discretion if the witness has disclosed sufficient knowledge of the subject to entitle his opinion to go to the jury.”’ The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment because the declaration raised triable issues of fact “as to the effect of the evidence of custom and usage.” Howard Entertainment v. Lisa Kudrow   (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 5; August 22, 2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1102.