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

 K 

ELLY 

M.

 

K 

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.