In Humes v. MarGil Ventures, Inc. (1985) 174 Cal. App. 3d 486, the plaintiff Mary-Margaret Humes, an actress, had entered into an agreement with Gilbert Cabot to form a theatrical production company called MarGil Ventures, Inc. Humes and Cabot had a falling out and Humes brought an action against Cabot and MarGil Ventures in superior court seeking involuntary dissolution of the corporation, removal of Cabot as director, rescission of the written employment agreement, accounting and damages for fraud. While the superior court action was pending, Humes filed a petition with the Labor Commissioner alleging Cabot had violated Labor Code section 1700.5 by acting as a talent agent without a license. The Labor Commissioner, after determining that Cabot had violated the act, declared the employment contract between Humes and Cabot void. Cabot appealed arguing, among other issues, that Humes had made an irrevocable election of remedies by initially bringing her action in superior court and was thus estopped from subsequently filing a petition for determination by the Labor Commissioner based on the same facts. The court rejected Cabot's argument. However, in doing so, it made the following comments: " 'In cases of controversy arising under this chapter the parties involved shall refer the matters in dispute to the Labor Commissioner, who shall hear and determine the same, subject to an appeal within 10 days after determination, to the superior court where the same shall be heard de novo.' " (Humes v. MarGil Ventures, Inc., supra, 174 Cal. App. 3d at p. 494.) The court continued: "Section 1700.44 is mandatory; as to a controversy such as this one arising under the Talent Agencies Act, the Labor Commissioner has original jurisdiction to hear and determine the same to the exclusion of the superior court, subject to an appeal to the superior court within 10 days after determination. Respondent had an administrative remedy which she was required to pursue regarding the alleged violation of the Labor Code. Had she sought relief in the superior court for this violation without first referring the claim to the Labor Commissioner and securing a determination by such official, it would have been premature and could not have been maintained. The controversy was properly and necessarily brought before the Labor Commissioner for determination." (Id. at pp. 494-495.)