Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rock River Communications v. Universal Music Group (Marley Remixes)

Rock River Communications v. Universal Music Group (Marley Remixes)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20 |Likes:
Published by Mark H. Jaffe
Plaintiff sued Universal Music Group over its wrongfully threatening to sue plaintiff's distributors if it released an album of Bob Marley remixes.
9th Circuit remands this case back to District Court.

The court found that neither party could clearly establish its licensing rights.

This opinion was originally issued in September 2013, and was amended on Jan. 22, 2014 to change a footnote.
Plaintiff sued Universal Music Group over its wrongfully threatening to sue plaintiff's distributors if it released an album of Bob Marley remixes.
9th Circuit remands this case back to District Court.

The court found that neither party could clearly establish its licensing rights.

This opinion was originally issued in September 2013, and was amended on Jan. 22, 2014 to change a footnote.

More info:

Categories:Types, Brochures
Published by: Mark H. Jaffe on Jan 24, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/27/2014

pdf

text

original

 
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OCK
IVER
C
OMMUNICATIONS
,I
 NC
.,
 Plaintiff-Appellan
,v.U
 NIVERSAL
M
USIC
G
ROUP
,
 
I
 NC
.;UMG
 
ECORDINGS
,
 
I
 NC
.;U
 NIVERSAL
M
USIC
G
ROUP
,I
 NTERNATIONAL
,
 
L
TD
.,
 Defendants-Appellees
. No. 11-57168D.C. No.2:08-cv-00635-CAS-AJW
OCK
IVER
C
OMMUNICATIONS
,I
 NC
.,
 Plaintiff-Appellee
,v.U
 NIVERSAL
M
USIC
G
ROUP
,
 
I
 NC
.;UMG
 
ECORDINGS
,
 
I
 NC
.;U
 NIVERSAL
M
USIC
G
ROUP
,I
 NTERNATIONAL
,
 
L
TD
.,
 Defendants-Appellants
. No. 12-55180D.C. No.2:08-cv-00635-CAS-AJWORDER ANDAMENDEDOPINIONAppeal from the United States District Courtfor the Central District of CaliforniaChristina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
 
OCK
IVER
C
OMMC
 N V
.
 
U
 NIVERSAL
M
USIC
G
ROUP
2Argued and SubmittedMay 9, 2013—Pasadena, CaliforniaFiled September 18, 2013Amended January 22, 2014Before: Harry Pregerson and Raymond C. Fisher, CircuitJudges, and Wiley Y. Daniel, District Judge.
*
Opinion by Judge Fisher 
SUMMARY
**
California Tort Law
The panel filed an order amending its opinion of September 18, 2013, and denying petitions for panelrehearing and rehearing en banc in a case concerning thelicensing rights for several musical recordings by Bob Marleyand the Wailers.In its opinion, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendantsand remanded the case for trial. The panel reversed thedistrict court’s grant of summary judgment on a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage
 
*
 The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judgefor the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 
**
 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
 
OCK
IVER
C
OMMC
 N V
.
 
U
 NIVERSAL
M
USIC
G
ROUP
3under California law, alleging that the defendantsinappropriately blocked the plaintiff from distributing itsalbum of Marley remixes by wrongfully threatening to suethe plaintiff’s distributors. The panel held that, althoughthere can be no liability for interfering with a businessexpectancy that is invalid or illegal, the defendant has the burden to prove the invalidity or illegality of the businessexpectancy as an affirmative defense. The panel held that thedefendants could not obtain summary judgment based onholes in the plaintiff’s claim to a valid license when the valueof the defendants’ own licensing rights was equally spotty. The panel affirmed the district court’s holding that triableissues of fact prevented summary adjudication of a
 Noerr- Pennington
 defense, under which pre-litigation material isimmune from suit unless the threatened lawsuit was a“sham.” The panel also affirmed the district court’s rulingthat the defendants did not implicitly waive privilege over their attorney-client communications.The panel amended the opinion by deleting footnote 6,which addressed the factual record relevant to the
 Noerr- Pennington
 issue.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->