Inappropriate Injunction: Beverly Glen Music, Inc. Summary

Title: The Inappropriate Injunction: Beverly Glen Music, Inc. v. Warner Communications, Inc. regarding Anita Baker.

Facts:
Anita Baker was in a multi-year contract with Beverly Glen Music Inc., (Beverly Glen). In 1982, Baker, recorded her first album with Glen Music, Songtress, which was considered a success based on moderate sales. In 1984, Baker was offered a better deal by a company named Elektra under Warner Communications, Inc., which Baker accepted based on problems she had with Glen. She informed Glen of the new contract and that she would not be performing for them anymore.
Beverly Glen filed a subsequent law suit against Warner Inc., this time seeking an injunction against the hiring of Ms. Baker and the use of her vocal talent for

Baker to breach her contract, an attempt to prohibit the company from hiring and benefitting from Bakers talent. This injunction was also denied.

Holding:
The injunction against Ms. Baker was voluntarily dismissed by Beverly Glen admittedly due to contract flaw, specifically not including a guaranteed yearly compensation fee of $6,000.
The injunction against Warner Inc., was a different approach to achieve the same outcome, to restrict bar or stop Ms. Bakers efforts to perform and produce albums under another label. Injunction denied.

Reasoning:
Regarding Ms. Baker, California contract law (Civil Code section 3423, fifth subdivision section 526) states that both an annual compensation fee of $6,000.00 is under contract paid to a performer and the service be of a unique nature are required to validate a contract agreement. While valid if this were the case, an employee cannot be forced to work for an employer. Baker was not under contract agreement that included the yearly guaranteed $6,000 compensation fee, a fact that Beverly Glen admitted leading to voluntary dismissal.
Based on the voluntary dismissal, and the rules of contract law that personal services cannot be enforced the injunction was denied against Warner

Baker to return to the company and perform solely for them. The request that the injunction bar Warner Inc., from hiring her was an attempt to cut off her ability to support herself and Glen would not gain anything other than blocking Ms. Baker from making a living or per the Thirteenth “…prevent other forms of compulsory labor akin to that of slavery”. To clarify, if Ms. Baker were hired to perform on a particular date and time (special occasion or performance)under a contract but chose to not do so to perform at another venue on the same date and time for more money could be addressed for the violation of contractual agreement. On the argument that Warner “stole” Ms. Baker, the idea of a predatory situation would be a consideration for damages to recover, this was not the case. The request was to merely deny Ms. Baker employment unless she returned to Glen, with no gain other than that, servitude. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s