Study case questions

The "Blurred Lines" Lawsuit: Study Questions Q The discussion between the Gayes and the Sony music company is a good example of a Negotiation ADR. In Negotiation method, the parties enter into a discussion on their will without the involvement of a third party. In this case, for example, Gaye turned down Sonys offer. One of the reasons as to why Gayes rejected this offer could be that they anticipated a much better compensation from the judges verdict should the case proceed to trial.
Q.2: Although the California constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial, parties in the "Blurred Lines" suit would not bring the issue to the jury because the matter in question is equitable. The right to a jury trial in the declaratory judgment is only available to legal titles. However, the issue of copyrights in this case falls under equitable titles.
Q.3: In the lawsuit of the "Blurred Lines", California Courts have both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Firstly, both the complainant and defendant reside and operate businesses in California the court. therefore, the court has powers over the two parties. In addition, the court has jurisdiction over the claim since the petitioner applied for a declaration under the copyright Act.
Q.3: At the beginning of the counterclaim, the parties had sought for a jury trial. Jury trial at that juncture was appropriate to clear the contested facts, saving the cost of going into a full trial.
Q4: If I were the Gayes, I would request the defendant to supply the written lyrics that were done in the initial stages of compiling the song ahead of the recording. I would also ask for the names of some of the people who were close to the defendant during the period within which the song was compiled. Such witness would give account of how often the defendant accessed the copyrighted song in question. Lastly, I would request for a witness from the recording studio where the defendants did their recording.
Q.4: In early January, 204, Sony (EM) and the Gayes entered into a negotiation ADR yet again. This time, however, the two reached a settlement and resolved their participation in the case. Parties are allowed to enter into ADR while the case is ongoing because it is in the courts and every partys best interest that the case is resolved amicably without undue waste of time and resources.
Q.5: In my opinion, the attorney had Thicke admit that he reviewed his answers to the interrogatories to add weight to Thicke’s deposition. He can use the reviewed statement to develop his case while discrediting Thicke’s self-confessed plagiarism.
Q.6: Since the motion for summary judgment was denied in the “Blurred Lines” lawsuit, Thicke and William have no option but to face the Gayes in a full trial. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the trial is scheduled for February, 10 2015 (Lewis, latimes.com).
Work Cited
Lewis, Randy. “Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams lose first round in Blurred Lines case.” &nbsp.Los Angeles Times. October 30, 2014. Web. December 15, 2014. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-blurred-lines-marvin-gaye-lawsuit-20141030-story.html