Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Combined Final Cert With App 12 08 10

Combined Final Cert With App 12 08 10

Ratings: (0)|Views: 318 |Likes:
Published by eriqgardner

More info:

Published by: eriqgardner on Dec 15, 2010
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

12/15/2010

pdf

text

original

 
 
N
O
.
 
 ______ 
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
 ________________ 
 
 AFTERMATH
 
RECORDS
 
(
D
/
B
/
 A
 AFTERMATH
 
ENTERTAINMENT),
 
INTERSCOPE
 
RECORDS,
 
UMG
 
RECORDINGS,
 
INC.,
 
Petitioners 
,v.F.B.T.
 
PRODUCTIONS,
 
LLC,EM2M,
 
LLC,
Respondents.
 ________________ 
 
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
 ________________ 
 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 ________________ 
 
G
LENN
D.
 
P
OMERANTZ
 
ELLY 
M.
 
LAUS
M
ELINDA
E.
 
L
E
M
OINE
 MUNGER, TOLLES &OLSON LLP355 South Grand AvenueThirty-Fifth FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071(213) 683-9100P
 AUL
D.
 
C
LEMENT
 
Counsel of Record 
 J
EFFREY 
S.
 
B
UCHOLTZ
  A
DAM
M.
 
C
ONRAD
 KING & SPALDING LLP1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, DC 20006(202) 737-0500PClement@kslaw.com
Counsel for Petitioners 
December 2010
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
In
Ortiz v. Jordan
, No. 09-737, this Courtgranted certiorari and heard oral argument onNovember 1, 2010 on the following question: “May aparty appeal an order denying summary judgmentafter a full trial on the merits if the party chose notto appeal the order before trial?”This case presents the same basic questions as
Ortiz
, outside the qualified-immunity context:1. May a party obtain appellate review aftertrial of the pretrial denial of summary judgment, ormust a party preserve the issues it argued atsummary judgment in the ways required by the rulesapplicable at trial?2. If appellate review after trial of the denial of summary judgment is ever appropriate, is suchreview limited to purely legal questions not tied tothe evidence, or does it also extend to mixedquestions of law and fact that require review of thetrial (or summary judgment) evidence?3. In all events, is summary reversal requiredwhere respondents explicitly disavowed in thedistrict court and on appeal the argument that thedistrict court erred by allowing the jury to interpretthe contract and did not argue in their opening orreply brief on appeal that they sought review of thedenial of summary judgment, and the Ninth Circuitsimply ignored those forfeitures without suggestingany legitimate basis to overlook them?
 
ii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Petitioner UMG Recordings, Inc. (“UMG”) is anindirect subsidiary of Vivendi S.A., which is apublicly traded corporation. Petitioner InterscopeRecords is a California general partnership. Thepartners in Interscope Records are UMG and PRIProductions, Inc., a Delaware corporation whollyowned by UMG. Petitioner Aftermath Records d/b/a Aftermath Entertainment is a joint venture co-ownedby UMG, Interscope Records, and ARY, Inc. ARY,Inc., which was a defendant in the district court butwas not a party in the court below, is not a publiclytraded company, and no publicly traded companyowns 10% or more of its stock.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->