Julianna Margulies Lawsuit With Ex-Manager to Go Forward in October

D/F Management claims it's owed commissions on celeb's "Good Wife" and L'Oreal revenues

"The Good Wife" star Julianna Margulies was allegedly a bad client, and now the actress will have to face trial over it.

Margulies suffered a legal setback in court on Tuesday, when a judge denied her motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought against her by her former management company over commissions it says it's owed.

D/F Management claims it's owed money stemming from Margulies' work on "The Good Wife" and for her work with cosmetics company L'Oreal.

Also read: Justin Bieber, Usher Slapped With $10 Million Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Margulies, who has filed a cross-complaint against D/F Management  for breach of contract, denies the claims, arguing that the company had no written agreement. While the actress' legal representation will move forward with that and other defenses, the argument wasn't enough to spur a summary judgment of the suit.

A trial date on the matter has been set for Oct. 9.

"We are pleased but not surprised by the judge's well reasoned decision rejecting Miss Margulies' motion," Matthew Rosengart, an attorney for D/F, said. "My clients are disappointed that she reneged on her agreement and then filed a meritless motion. We look forward to the trial in October."

According to court documents obtained by TheWrap, Margulies retained D/F in 2009 and terminated the relationship in April 2011. But D/F contends that it's owed a 10 percent commission on Margulies' earnings for "The Good Wife" and L'Oreal after the dissolution of the relationship, an assertion that the actress disputes.

Also read: Court OK's Lawsuit Against Oprah's Use of 'Own Your Power'

Margulies' motion for summary judgment, filed in February, argued that, since she is a New York resident and D/F's business is based in New York, that the state's statute of frauds should be applied, which Margulies' team contended should lead to a summary judgment. However, the judge said that there was a factual dispute that prevented him from ruling on the motion as a matter of law at the moment.

Pamela Chelin contribute to this report.