Question

BUSINESS LAW Please analyze the case "Bozzio v. EMI Group, Ltd." shown below. Write a personal analysis and discussion on case that includes the following: brief intro and relate case to life, explain issue, provide ruling, and elaborate on analysis. Below is an example of response structure as well.

Downey v. Bob's Discount Furniture Holdings, Inc._Case in Point 3.4 Text Page 63 by Student 1 - Sunday, August 31, 7:26 AM This case intrigued me because it raised the question of who really is considered to be an expert witness and what criteria must be met in order for a witness (or expert witness) to be able to give their opinion versus only the facts. Issue: Downey filed suit against Bob's Discount Furniture Holdings, Inc., because Downey claimed that a children's bedroom set that Downey purchased from Bob's was the source of the bed bug infestation that plagued their entire home, and Bob's was not willing to pay for the extermination costs and other damages Downey had accrued. Allegiance Pest Control's Edward Gordinier, a licensed and experienced exterminator, inspected their home and concluded that the bedroom set was the source of the infestation. Downey named Gordinier as a witness but did not submit a written report describing his anticipated testimony, nor did she specify his qualifications because Downy asserted that Gordinier had not been specifically employed as an expert so no such disclosures were required. The defendants argued that Gordinier then could not testify as to his expert opinion because of Downey's failure to submit a written report. The district court agreed and would only allow Gordinier to speak of the facts, not of his opinion, so Downey appealed. Ruling: The Court ruled that Gordinier was not the type of expert witness for whom a report was required, and the Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. Analysis: I agree with the ruling. According to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure experts must meet certain criteria in order for a plaintiff to have to file a written report describing an expert witnesses' anticipated testimony and qualifications. Downy did in fact comply with identifying Gordinier as a potential expert witness as required, but she did not provide detailed information about his qualifications and intended testimony, and she did not have to. Only if Gordinier, as an expert witness, was retained or specially employed by Downy did she need to comply with more stringent disclosure rules and requirements. At the new trial, I think that Gordinier should be able to give his expert opinion and not just speak of the facts. Just because he wasn't hired or retained to give expert testimony does not mean that he is not an expert in his field and that his opinion is not valuable. I believe his testimony will give way to relevant evidence and help Downey's case against Bob's Discount Furniture. Although, I personally would want to know more specific details about him before he was allowed to testify and give his opinion. I would like to know how long he has been in his respective field, how exemplarily his work history is, his background training in the field, and essentially learn as much as I can about his credibility as an expert in exterminations and sources of infestations. For example, if he had only been in this line of work for 6 months, I would question his credibility to give an "expert" opinion. I would want to know this individual had a the internal allocation and distribution of soyaltis that have already bem properly accouted for and paid by the cond lahel Bozzia v. EMI Group, Ltd. United Sates Cout of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 811 F.3d 1144 (2016) The district court granted Capisol's motion to dismiss The courtconcded that allowing Boia to sue s a hird-ourty beneficiary of the reooeding contract would pemit her to "ue the comorate ety to cotract, and gin the besefis ef the corponte fom, yet allow her to reain the right to sue as an individual, third party beneficiary eves when the corporation could not, on account of its failure to comply with its corporate obligions Boig timely sppealed o the US. Cout of Appeals for the Nsh Circa In the Langaage of the Ceurt CHRISTEN, Circuit Judge In 1980, Dale Boia Tery Boiand Waren Cuul founded the band Mising Persoes As the band's front woman, Dale Borio personifiod the sound and the look of the new wave scene in 1980s Los Angeles On appal, Uaale gus that the suspnded status of the contractisng corporate party is imeleva nial of the omplaint on that bass constintes vrsbie emor, We agree with Boi t the dtrict court ered in helding that, even if Boia is a third-party beneficiary, he canot bring an action while Missing Persos, Inc is snpsded when Capitol Records signed the bend andthe individual atits in 1982. Their agreement peovided that e ants comprising Mising Persons would create master recondings that Capisol wouldd sel and license In nturn, Capitol promisod to "pay soyaitios at ratos ranging bom 20% to 24% for sales in the Unitod Sunes and Canada, and from 7% to 8s or sales in the rest of the world The agreement also prided t the artists would ceive 50% of Capisal's net royalties from censing The paries have net ched, and we have not found, any California case holding that a third-party beneficiary cannot e the peomisor foe breach of contract when the is a spended corponation Calie cout do not consider dhe icapacity of the uioto a contract to be an abeohute bar a laby a sind parey bn mphasis added Is 1983, Usnd the other band mebers formed Missing Perons, Isc, a Califmia corponion, to serve as a loas-out compeny through which they weeld peovide services to Capitol A leas-o copoion is a legal ftion empleyed for the fiancial beneft of ccessfal as nd entenainers It is dly organied corporation, typically wholy owned by an ati, the sole function of which is to "oan ouhe services of the anis-owner to producers and other potential empleyers When siting in divenity Jurisdiction, this cout will fellow a stae supreme cour's interpeetation Where the state's highest court has not deckded an iue, this court leoks for gaidance to decisicns by iemediate appellate cous of the stane Here, the Califomia Supreme Court has not decided wer r is Cut of Capl sbequently eered into a new coct, called the Loan Out Agement, with Mising Persons Ic The Lon-Out Agement wbtitted Masing Pencn, l in place of he individal band mmbers y e et to the artists a ed t Miing Peons Inc was to reorive all cotractal besefis and ot Capitel, was o pay the individual ari all required reyalies and advnces As pan of the Lon Out Agremen, ch bd menber ected an Artin Declaration ies declaion stes that he "agrees to look olely to Miing Perso Ine for the paymen of her fees andor royalsies will sot ast ay clains in this regard gaist Capitel pwad sowianding the pui icapacity to s There, the diict coun ered in s mo that a ind-party bneficiary casst clai ire nded coponion s light of the above,it was an emor to grt the otion to dimis on the grund that Mising Perons Inc wasa peded ooporation The aic group dsbanded in 1986, and, as of July 1, 1988, Mising Penom, Inc was sapendad under Calfomia Revesue and Taxation Code Section 23301 due to falure so pay es The parties do sot dapte that Miing Parons, Inc. remie a spended copoion Capil eusly argues that by agrecing"oto ase any clains gainst Capiol" Baia waved her right to sue as a thind-party beneficiary. Boig cousters that this "look soldly so" claus was endod to probibit an artist from ating a clain against Capiol only "when there is a dispute among idividal band bers over the istmal allocation and disbuios of royalies that have already bees poperty accountod for and paid by the recoed label to the artists sical group or loan-out copoticn Neding in the recond forecloses Biading of this coact langage. Is 2012, Daia feda i a fodeal dstrit coun is) the Narhem Disrict of Califoia The complaint alleges breach of contract and other claims againt EMI Group, Ld, Capitel Recoeds, LLC nd ohers(olletively, "Capio Specifically, the complaint alleges that Capiol flled to "property acoount for and pay is recording artists and music producens for income it has roceivad, and contius to roceive, om the licenses of its reconded music catalog for the sale of digial downloads, ringones (o and streaming muic"It requests declantory jadgment, injanctive relief, restitution, and Momeys foes We agee with Boia whother she forfeied the ability so sae as a third party benefieiary is a fact 4to roualation a bei dim clais that she was an intended third party beneficiary O d developed that will llow cosideration of Ba of the Agroment Capiol moved to dismiss Boal complain Captol primarily argued tha Bia could ox file t bocae she euprcealy agreod in the Artist Declaration to "look solcly to" the loas-out corporation for eyaty payments and promisod to "ot assert any claim in this regand agint CapiolBoia countered t he ws an intended thind-party beneficiary of the Loa-Out Agroement with an individual right to u that is separate fhom the capocation's Accordiag to Bagria, the Atiat Doclarations "oaly probibit an atist fom assarting a claim aginst EMI when there is a dispute among individal band menbes over ... REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Answer 1

This is a breach of contract case. vale Bozzio, front girl of the previous band Missing Persons, claims the suspectrecording firms improperly treated sure sales of Missing Persons's recordings—through music transfer services, portable mastertone downloads, and licensing for music streaming services—as record sales instead of revenue from licensing, and, as a result, paid the artists a lower royalty rate than the one provided for in their recording contracts. Bozzio isn't a celebration to the recording contracts she seeks to enforce, however she filed suit as a third-party beneficiary.

The district court laid-off Bozzio's criticism. The court reasoned that though Bozzio was associate degree supposedthird-party beneficiary, the catching party, Missing Persons, Inc., was a suspended corporation once Bozzio filed her criticism and its suspended standing prevented it from transfer suit underneath CA law. The district court dominatedthat as a result of Missing Persons, Inc. lacked capability to sue, a third-party beneficiary of Missing Persons, Inc.'s contract was equally while not capability to sue. The district court set that any modification would be futile and laid-offBozzio's criticism with prejudice.

Bozzio's attractiveness needs United States of America to resolve 2 questions:
(1) whether or not the district court erred by closing that Missing Persons, Inc.'s suspended standing precluded Bozzio's suit; and
(2) whether or not Bozzio pleaded facts adequate to determine her standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Missing Persons, Inc. and therefore the recording firms.