Plaintiff boxing manager sued defendant boxer and defendant boxing corporations, alleging the boxer breached an oral agreement for the manager to manage the boxer’s career. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the basis that the manager was not licensed and his pleading of an oral agreement with the boxer was a binding judicial admission. The manager appealed.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. shares information on CRC Appointments
The manager argued that his characterization of himself as the boxer’s manager was a mere conclusion that did not rise to the level of a judicial admission that he was the boxer’s manager within the meaning of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 18628. From this premise, the manager argued there was a material issue of fact as to whether he was the boxer’s manager and, as a result, it was error to grant summary judgment for defendants. The court concluded that the manager, having repeatedly set forth the allegation as his status of manager, was not entitled to change course in response to a summary judgment motion and argue he was not filing suit in his capacity as manager. The conduct the manager alleged he engaged in, on behalf of the boxer, fell within the statutory definition of a manager. The manager played a direct role in all matters pertaining to the boxer’s career, including managing his business and personal affairs. Because the record as a whole, including the complaint and the manager’s declaration, established that he acted as a manager without a written contract and without a license as required by Bus. & Prof. Code, § 18642, summary judgment was properly granted.
The judgment was affirmed.