Seyfarth於1999年11月對Greenfield提起訴訟；自Blanks付給Greenfield第1張支票起算1999年12月29日加州藝人經紀法規定1年時效屆滿；最後16張付給Greenfield支票於2000年8月2日時效屆滿。Seyfarth發現明顯犯錯時於2000年8月28日向勞工委員長提起救濟，勞工委員長認為Greenfield的確違反TAA；不過，TAA規定勞工委員長有專屬管轄權凌駕TAA規定的訴訟管轄，前開向勞工委員長提起之救濟未在最後一張支票付款1年內為之，Blanks因而無法請求Greenfield返還報酬。
In the subsequent malpractice case against Seyfarth, because Seyfarth neglected to proceed first with the Labor Commissioner and the statute of limitations for such proceeding had expired, both the trial court and the Court of Appeal found Seyfarth liable for the loss of Blanks’ right to recover moneys paid for unlicensed activities, and the trial court awarded Blanks $10.5 million in compensatory damages, $15 million in punitive damages and $5.6 million in interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeal, however, ruled that the trial court was in error in finding that, due to the lack of a license, the agreement between Blanks and Greenfield was “void ab initio” and Greenfield could recover nothing, because the agreement between Blanks and Greenfield was subject to the doctrine of severability. Since many of the services provided by Greenfield did not require a TAA license, by not instructing the jury on the doctrine of severability, the trial court had “usurped the jury’s responsibility to determine causation and damages” in the malpractice action. The Court of Appeal required further work by the trial court to find out what portion of the unlicensed talent agent’s work was not the kind of work that required a license.
在之後對Seyfarth的訴訟中，因Seyfarth過失未於第一時間向勞工委員長提起救濟，導致時效完成，一，二審都判定Seyfarth需就Blanks無法向Greenfield請求返還昔日報酬負責；一審判決Seyfarth須賠償Blanks1,050萬美元損害賠償；1,500萬美元懲罰性損害賠償及560萬美元利息、律師費與裁判費。不過，一審以Blanks與Greenfield間契約因經紀人無執照而自始無效，所以Greenfield本就不能向Balnks請求報酬，二審認為一審這樣的見解著是有誤的。既然Greenfield處理受任事務，有許多是毋庸執照即可處理的；一審未指示陪審團契約可分原則，顯然剝奪陪審團於執業過失訴訟裁斷因果關係及賠償金的職責。二審要求一審細究到底何種業務係無需執照之經紀人亦得從事。
Conclusion結論
In spite of the actual outcome of the Blanks case, in which the Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s massive judgment against the law firm, the Blanks case still stands as a warning to attorneys involved in disputes between a professional, such as a talent agent, and the professional’s client. If the severability doctrine had not applied, i.e. if all of Greenfield’s activities had required a license under the TAA, the Court of Appeal may very well have let the trial court judgment stand. The Blanks case demonstrates that when representing clients against talent agents based in California, it is critical to be familiar with the peculiarities of California’s Talent Agencies Act, and where such cases should properly be brought.
諸不論Blanks案之實際結果如何，上訴審廢棄諸多不利於被告事務所判決部分，Blanks案現仍作為藝人經紀人間，專業人士與客戶間之警示；假設契約可分原則不適用本案，Greenfield所有行為依據TAA須取得執照，上訴審使下級審法院判決得以穩固。由Blanks一案可知，當代理客戶在加州對經紀人起訴時，熟稔加州藝人經紀法特殊規定尤其重要，並且要曉知要向何法院起訴。