Erhlich v. Digg

169 F.Supp.2d 124 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a manager of musical groups and an attorney who is a resident of California and is admitted to practice law in New York. Diggs (D) is a rap artist known as RZA and Prince Rakim. D is a resident of New York and maintains an affiliation with a group known as the Gravediggaz. D is also a solo artist, and a producer and member of another rap group called Wu Tang Clan. In 1993, Gravediggaz entered into a written contract to retain P as their exclusive representative in negotiating a record contract. As a result of these efforts, a written contract with Gee Street Records was obtained. Gee Street also got an option for the recording services of D as a solo artist. In 1993, P was hired as the manager of the Gravediggaz under an oral contract. P claims that he was to receive 15% of all gross earnings of the Gravediggaz and each of its members for all entertainment-related employment, engagements or agreements. This arrangement was terminable by any of the parties at any time. P contends that the duties of a manager can be easily determined by industry practice and that it was standard industry practice that a manager of a musical group was entitled to commissions on entertainment-related work by each member of the group even if the work was by an individual member of the group. In 1996, D entered into a written contract with Gee Street as a solo artist. D argues that this contract is independent of the relationship with P. P contends that the options for individual recording services given to Gee comes directly from his negotiations with Gee over the Gravediggaz. P contends that the 1993 contract with Gee and the 1996 contract with D as a solo artist were inextricably linked. P sued seeking commissions based on D’s earnings from individual work, from ancillary work as a result of D’s work as a member of the Gravediggaz, a percentage of D’s earnings from production of two Gravediggaz albums and music videos, an accounting, and damages for substantial cost overruns and depressed album sales as a result of D’s late or cancelled appearances for Gravediggaz concerts, events, and recording and video sessions. D moves to dismiss because the enforcement of the oral agreement is barred by the Statute of frauds.