George Foreman and Charles R. Sadler, and v. George Foreman Associates, Ltd., and George Foreman Associates, Ltd., and v. George Foreman, And

517 F.2d 354 George FOREMAN and Charles R. Sadler, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. GEORGE FOREMAN ASSOCIATES, LTD., Defendant and Appellant. GEORGE FOREMAN ASSOCIATES, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George FOREMAN et al., Defendants and Appellees. Nos. 74-2143, 74-2216. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 9, 1975. Rehearing Denied June 2, 1975. Frederick P. Furth (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Stephen V. Bomse, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees. OPINION Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, * WALLACE and SNEED, Circuit Judges. SNEED, Circuit Judge: 1 George Foreman Associates, Ltd., appeals from a judgment holding a 1972 agreement between Associates and George Foreman void as a boxing management contract which fails to comply with California law in numerous respects. We affirm. 2 The facts are fully set out in the opinion of the district court which is reported at 389 F.Supp. 1308 (N.D.Cal.1974). We agree that California law renders the 1972 agreement void and adopt the reasoning of the opinion below. We find no merit in Associates' argument that our decision gives extraterritorial effect to California law and thereby violates the Commerce…

George Foreman Associates, Ltd., appeals from a judgment holding a 1972 agreement between Associates and George Foreman void as a boxing man *356 agement contract which fails to comply with California law in numerous respects. We affirm.

The facts are fully set out in the opinion of the district court which is reported at 389 F.Supp. 1308 (N.D.Cal. 1974). We agree that California law renders the 1972 agreement void and adopt the reasoning of the opinion below. We find no merit in Associates’ argument that our decision gives extraterritorial effect to California law and thereby violates the Commerce Clause. The method of determining applicable law is the only point which merits further discussion.

In this diversity case the district court effectively functioned as another court of the forum state California and was obliged to apply the same substantive law as would a court of that state. We concur in its choice of California law as the law governing the contract.

The 1972 agreement provides in paragraph 15 that “This agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.” The district court accordingly applied the law of California, having…

(concurring):

I concur in both the result and the reasoning of the majority opinion. However, I cannot join with my Brothers in adopting that part of the reasoning of the district court which results in holding that Foreman Associates provided “services” to Foreman, within the meaning of Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 18674(c), when it advanced money to him. Thus, the district court concluded, because Foreman Associates was entitled to receive more than ten percent of the gross purse, it was an unlicensed “manager” within the jurisdiction of the California State Athletic Commission.

Foreman Associates was certainly not a manager in the ordinary sense. Nor can I agree that members of á syndicate who merely invest funds necessary to advance a boxer’s career are “managers” within the meaning of Cal.Bus. & Prof. Code § 18674. They are not managers but financial backers, a distinction which must have been apparent to the drafters of section 18674. The section is very specific: “The commission may license professional boxers, professional wrestlers, and booking agents, managers, trainers, and seconds of each.” I cannot extend this specific language to entities, like Foreman Associates, that…