Plaintiff personal manager claimed that, after he was terminated by defendant entertainer

Procedural Posture Plaintiff personal manager claimed that, after he was terminated by defendant entertainer, he was entitled to a percentage of the income from engagements entered into, and services rendered, during the period of his retention under an oral contract. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, excluded the declaration of the manager's expert on custom and usage and granted summary judgment for the entertainer. The manager appealed. Overview: Consult experienced business attorneys LA The court of appeal held that the declaration from the manager's expert should have been admitted into evidence. The expert declaration had a proper foundation, even though the expert failed to demonstrate that he had participated in transactions as a personal manager similar to, and prior to, the one at issue and failed to specify the persons with whom he communicated and the details of specific transactions relied on. The foundation was sufficient under Evid. Code, § 720, subd. (a), as to the expert's qualifications because the declaration showed, among other things, that he was president of a prominent talent agency, had represented as a talent agent actors who were represented by personal managers, and was familiar with specific instances concerning the payment of personal managers after termination of their representation. The factual foundation was sufficient under Evid. Code, § 801(a), despite the lack of specific details in portions of the declaration, because the expert stated that there was an established custom and usage to pay post-termination compensation to talent agents and that the usages of talent agents and personal managers were comparable. Outcome The court reversed the summary judgment.