Snoop Dogg Fights East-West Labor Battle

NEW YORK ? Snoop Dogg may have yet another reason to favor the West Cost. The rapper and actor is embroiled in a feud over whether California labor law allows him to get out of his publishing contract with EMI Blackwood Music so he can sign a more lucrative deal.

Snoop Dogg, born Calvin Broadus, filed suit on June 9 in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming that California Labor Code Section 2855 prohibits contracts that require employees to render personal services for more than seven years. EMI responded three weeks later by filing a countersuit against the hip-hop artist in New York Supreme Court seeking a declaratory judgement that Snoop's contract is still valid under applicable New York law.

"EMI is entitled to a declaratory judgment that California Labor Code Section 2855, the sole section relied upon by Broadus in the California Complaint as a basis for his alleged right to terminate the agreement, is not applicable as California law is not applicable to the agreement," the EMI suit alleges. And "even if it were, Broadus is not an employee of EMI under the terms of the agreement within the meaning of the California Labor Code but is an independent contractor."

Snoop Dogg is a California resident, which he claims entitles him to the protection of California laws. His agreement with EMI, however, contains a New York choice-of-law provision.

The dispute figures to turn on the application of the law known in entertainment circles as the "Seven-Year Statute." California Labor Code Section 2855 has been controversial since its inception nearly 70 years ago. Actress Olivia de Havilland used it in 1945 as the basis for extricating herself from her contract with Warner Bros. Pictures.

Since then, the entertainment industry has lobbied for limits on the scope of the statute, but the law still serves as an important vehicle for many recording artists to sever ties with their labels.

Labor attorney Jeff Winikow said that although the law has been on the books since 1937, it rarely gets tested in court, as many entertainment companies prefer to reach private resolution.

"There isn't a wealth of precedent interpreting the statute, which means that the army of lawyers should be steadily employed for some time," he said.

Snoop Dogg is represented by Yakub Hazzard of Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan in Santa Monica. Donald Zakarin of Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn in New York is representing EMI.

Accordning to EMI's complaint, Zakarin drafted a letter to Hazzard spelling out EMI's position that Snoop's contract specifically states he is an "independent contractor," not an employee, with an obligation to deliever to EMI for its exclusive administration any musical compositions he writes. The letter goes on to state that the agreement is not a "personal services" contract, that the contract specifically designates New York as the choice-of-law, and it allows EMI the option to match any competing publishing offer.

The contract was signed in 1999 with a minimum 10-year duration, according to the complaint.

Jay Cooper, a music lawyer at Greenberg Traurig in New York, said that many artists have been successful at getting out of their deals using the Seven-Year Statute.

"The value of the artist changes over the seven years," he said. "The purpose of the law was to give them the opportunity to go elsewhere and be free."

But Cooper said he isn't sure how courts will interpret the choice-of-law provision ? called "boilerplate" in Snoop Dogg's suit ? or the matching option.

"Whether matching right gives the artist an opportunity to explore the marketplace is an interesting twist," Cooper said. "Essentially, the contract says, 'Mr. Dogg, go out and see what your value is. Now that you know, we can match it.' "