Carlsmith Ball, LLP and James E. Blancarte for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Matheny Sears Linkert & Long and Eric R. Wiesel for Defendants and Respondent.
__________________________________
A boxing manager is defined by California law as any person who undertakes to represent in any way the interest of a professional boxer with respect to the arrangement or conduct of any professional boxing contest, or any person who directs or controls the activities of any professional boxer. A contract to manage a professional boxer must be in writing, and managers must be licensed by the State Athletic Commission (the commission).
Plaintiff and appellant Jose Castillo filed a complaint alleging defendant and respondent Marco Antonio Barrera, a professional boxer and two-time world champion, breached an oral agreement for Castillo to manage Barrera's career. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Barrera, and defendants and respondents Barrera Promotions, Inc. and Marco Antonio Boxing, Inc., on the basis that Castillo was not a licensed manager and his pleading of an oral agreement with Barrera was a binding judicial admission. We reject Castillo's appellate challenge to the grant of summary judgment and affirm.
In action for breach of oral contract and quantum meruit based on services allegedly rendered to defendant, a professional boxer, plaintiff's allegations that he rendered those services in the capacity of a manager constituted a binding judicial admission fatal to the claims because plaintiff was unlicensed, and California law requires that boxing managers be licensed and that contracts be in writing on a form approved by the State Athletic Commission. Plaintiff's allegations that he agreed to assume responsibility as defendant's manager in accord with the established custom in the professional boxing industry in exchange for a percentage of defendant's earnings; that he played a direct role "in all matters" pertaining to defendant's boxing career, "including, without limitation, managing his business and personal affairs;" that he negotiated defendant's promotional contract; that he made diligent efforts to settle three lawsuits involving defendant to extricate defendant from "career turmoil;" that he played a direct and instrumental role in settlement of three lawsuits, "thereby allowing [defendant] to continue with his professional boxing career;" and that he worked with an attorney to extricate defendant from tax problems and helped him obtain medical clearances "which could have otherwise hampered or damaged his career" established as a matter of law that plaintiff was acting in the capacity of a manager. Plaintiff's allegations that he performed 400 or more hours of work on defendant's behalf did not entitle him to recovery in quantum meruit where it was established that plaintiff acted in the capacity of a boxing manager despite the lack of a license and a written contract. To allow recovery in that circumstance would be contrary to the regulatory purpose of the Boxing Act. Where plaintiff entered into purported manager's contract with defendant in California and sued to enforce it in a California court, state's "unusually strong" public policy interest in regulating boxing supported application of California law to activities in connection with a bout that took place in another state.
