Kudrow

*1105 Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Scott Howard (Howard), a personal manager, entered into an oral agreement with defendant and respondent Lisa Kudrow (Kudrow), an entertainer, by which agreement he would receive for personal management services a percentage of Kudrow’s income. 1 After Kudrow terminated Howard’s services, he claimed that he should continue to receive a percentage of Kudrow’s income from Kudrow’s engagements entered into, or from services rendered, during the period of his retention. Howard relied upon custom and usage in the industry to support his claim. In granting a summary judgment in favor of Kudrow, the trial court excluded from evidence the declaration of Howard’s expert on the ground of lack of foundation. We reverse the summary judgment, holding that the expert’s declaration should have been admitted in evidence.

BACKGROUND

A. The Previous Appeal

Kudrow began working in the entertainment industry in 1986. By 1991, she had performed in a play and in an NBC pilot, made several television appearances, performed minor roles in several motion pictures, and been a featured comedy theater performer. She had a personal manager for…

I concur.

I would apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review to the ruling striking the declaration of Martin Bauer. Admissibility of evidence issues, even in the summary judgment context, are reviewed under the majority rule for an abuse of discretion. Every single Court of Appeal decision in the past one-half decade has applied the abuse of discretion standard of review in the summary judgment context to admissibility of evidence contentions. (Barker v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 140 , 146-147 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 616 ]; Shugart v. Regents of University of California (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 499, 505 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 ]; Kincaid v. Kincaid (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 75, 82-83 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 863 ]; Miranda v. Bomel Construction Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1335 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 538 ]; Jennifer C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1332 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 274 ]; Jones v. P.S. Development Co., Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 707, 711 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 882 ], disapproved on other grounds in Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 532, fn. 7 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 327 , 235 P.3d 988 ]; Great American Ins. Cos. v.…