Denlea & Carton Secures Four Wins for Elite Model Management in California Labor Code Disputes
Denlea & Carton LLP (together with Steptoe) successfully represented Elite Model Management in a series of four recent rulings in the Los Angeles Superior Court, defeating attempts by brands to shift California Labor Code waiting-time penalties onto the agency.
Over the past year, a new tactic has emerged in California photo-shoot payment disputes: when sued for late payment under the Labor Code, brands and producers have increasingly tried to pull the model’s agency into the litigation and argue that, if the brand is liable, the agency should reimburse them.
Courts have now repeatedly rejected that approach.
Denlea & Carton obtained four separate dismissals, each reinforcing a core principle: waiting-time penalties are directed at employers — not talent agencies acting in their representative capacity. When the agency is not the employer and the paperwork reflects an agency relationship, courts are unwilling to recast the agency as the statutory “wage payer.”
Summary of the Four Rulings
1) Kusez v. Anastasia Beveryly Hills (Dept. 57 – Sept. 24, 2025)
The brand asserted indemnity, contribution, and other theories seeking to shift potential waiting-time exposure to the agency. The court found the brand had not pled a shared legal obligation that would justify shifting penalties, though it allowed amendment on other theories.
2) Kusez v. Anastasia Beverly Hills (Dept. 57 – Feb. 10, 2026)
After multiple amendments, the court sustained Elite’s demurrer without leave to amend and ordered dismissal with prejudice.
- Fraud: insufficiently pled; no specific facts showing knowledge or intent to defraud by sending an invoice.
- Contract: the express terms of the invoice controlled over any “implied agreement” alleged by the brand.
3) Riley v. Endless Blu (Dept. 17 – Dec. 22, 2025)
Following one amendment, the court again sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The brand failed to allege facts establishing a breach of contract.
4) Iakovina/Riley v. Lucy In The Sky (Dept. 45 – Feb. 5, 2026)
The court sustained Elite’s demurrer to the amended cross-claims without further leave to amend. It rejected the brand’s attempt to impose “implied Labor Code obligations” that conflicted with the express terms of the invoice.
Industry Implications
These rulings provide important guidance for participants in the modeling, production, and creator-economy sectors:
- For brands and producers: California Labor Code penalty exposure cannot be pushed “down the chain” to a talent agency after the fact.
- For agencies: Clear booking terms and consistent payment practices remain critical; courts continue to rely heavily on the written documents.
- For all parties: Properly labeling relationships (i.e., employee, independent contractor, loan-out) and ensuring the paperwork reflects that reality is essential.
This update is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
