Cameo Clips

The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, upheld a jury verdict ordering the return of $780,000 in deposit money paid for a proposed Rod Stewart tour of Latin America. But the court of appeal reversed a verdict of $1.6 million in damages that had been based on the jury's finding that Stewart's agent Steve Levine and lawyer Barry Tyerman intentionally interfered with contracts with tour subpromoters. PM Group Inc. v. Stewart, B181839. Concert promoter Howard Pollack and subpromoters AKE Music and Boulevard CIE filed the suit. In its unpublished opinion, the court of appeal first found that the expert testimony of entertainment attorney Owen J. Sloane had been properly admitted, noting, 'The record reveals Sloane's testimony related primarily to the customs and practices of the entertainment industry, specifically, the music concert business. Because these customs and practices are sufficiently beyond common experience, Sloane's expert opinion was admissible to assist the trier of fact.' The court of appeal then explained that, 'as a matter of law, Stewart and his agents could not have interfered with the performance of these subcontracts ' [A] contracting party is incapable of interfering with the performance of his or her own contract ' Additionally, the jury concluded Stewart and [plaintiff] PM Group never entered into a binding contract for Stewart's performance. Thus, none of the subcontracts among the plaintiffs and the subpromoters could have been performed.' Upholding the return of the deposit money, the court of appeal concluded that, 'as the trial court observed in its post trial rulings, each defendant was the agent of Stewart and the agent of each other. This being the case, [Stewart's manager, defendant Annie] Challis and Levine were agents of Stewart and agents of each other. Based on Pollack's testimony that each denied they were 'setting him up' for a cancellation before Pollack signed the release [of the deposit funds], the jury reasonably could conclude Challis and Levine each had sufficient involvement in the negligent misrepresentation to warrant imposition of liability.'