Anthony J. Oncidi

Oncidi has been lead counsel in high profile cases, reinforcing his reputation as a trusted, go-to advisor and litigator for labor and employment issues in the entertainment and media industries.

When client Creative Artists Agency LLC learned that a group of its top Hollywood agents had defected to a rival, it asked Oncidi to sue over breach of contract and related claims. As Oncidi and a law partner drafted the complaint, Oncidi said the colleague left a blank space near the top and told him, "you need a grabbing phrase here."

"In an inspired moment," he added, "I described the defendant's move to hire the agents as 'a lawless midnight raid.'"

The phrase resonated. It was repeated frequently in news stories about the case. "And you can Google it now," Oncidi said, laughing. Technically, he conceded, the raid did not take place in the dark of night. "That was my poetic interpretation. But it was done secretively. They kept all their communications off email."

In May, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that CAA could pursue punitive damages against the defecting agents and their new employer. Trial is set for Dec. 12, and a related arbitration proceeding is ongoing. Creative Artists Agency LLC v. United Talent Agency LLC, SC123994 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 2, 2015)

Along with any punitive damages Oncidi could win for his client, there is a lot of money in lost commissions at stake, he said. "United Talent knew our agents were under contract, and the agency induced them to breach. Even in Hollywood, in my experience, that was a bold move. Nobody ever hires someone under contract to somebody else."

Beyond the melodrama of big shot talent agencies in a marquee feud, there is an important legal question at stake, Oncidi said. "This is a big deal because their primary defense is something known as the seven year rule." Labor Code section 2855 holds that "a contract" is voidable by an employee after seven years. "None of the agents had seven-year contracts," Oncidi said. "They had 'em in two- and three-year terms. The game they're playing is the claim that they get to add them together to make seven, so they're voidable."

If the defense is right, that could be bad news for employers, Oncidi said. "People are concerned about their theory. And there's not really any controlling case law supporting either side. Of course, if it comes down to statutory construction, there is no lack of clarity. The statute says 'a contract,' not three strung together."

Oncidi called the case interesting. "If we prevail on what 2855 means, we hope and expect to get a star on Hollywood Boulevard for CAA," he said.

— John Roemer