Problem and Problem Cases Mod 2
Introduction to Business Law and Ethics
Timothy Riley
Grand Canyon University
Module 2
May 5, 2013
Instructor: Pedro Moreno
Chapter 5
Garelli Wong, Inc. v. William M. Nichols, Case 1:07-CV-06227
The court found in favor of Nichols. Due to the fact, that Garelli Wong’s complaint did not warrant any merit. All three counts were dismissed. The decision was based on, that due to its sole jurisdiction over the case, they dismissed the Garelli Wong’s claims based on “When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims”.(2008) Of which they relinquish its jurisdiction. Garelli Wong in its claim against Nichols, count III was dismissed for failure to state a claim. In my opinion Nichols, was in violation of Garelli Wong’s claim because of the disclosure agreement he had signed while under their employ. Contracts are binding and that is the smoking gun, and that being the case Nichols was in direct violation of that contract, for this reason alone the courts should have found in favor of Garelli Wong, Inc.
Chapter 6
Comedy III v. Gary Saderup. 83 cal.Rptr.2d 533 (1999) 973 P .2d 512
This is a clear open and shut case. Saderup had no legal recourse to fall back on because of the fact Comedy III had him on the Statute, enacted 1971 Civil Code section 3344,” authorizing recovery of damages by any living person whose name, photograph, or likeness has been used for commercial purposes without his or her consent”. (1971) Saderup tried to use the 1st. Amendment to hide behind, but the California Supreme Court ruled it out, and that Saderup appeal was overturned. [Cite: No Doubt v. Activision Publishing] Therefore, to answer the question, yes, their decision in ruling in favor of the plaintiff was correct. Cases like these are very sensitive, whether it is copyright infringement, or anything to do with reproduction of original material,
Timothy Riley
Grand Canyon University
Module 2
May 5, 2013
Instructor: Pedro Moreno
Chapter 5
Garelli Wong, Inc. v. William M. Nichols, Case 1:07-CV-06227
The court found in favor of Nichols. Due to the fact, that Garelli Wong’s complaint did not warrant any merit. All three counts were dismissed. The decision was based on, that due to its sole jurisdiction over the case, they dismissed the Garelli Wong’s claims based on “When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims”.(2008) Of which they relinquish its jurisdiction. Garelli Wong in its claim against Nichols, count III was dismissed for failure to state a claim. In my opinion Nichols, was in violation of Garelli Wong’s claim because of the disclosure agreement he had signed while under their employ. Contracts are binding and that is the smoking gun, and that being the case Nichols was in direct violation of that contract, for this reason alone the courts should have found in favor of Garelli Wong, Inc.
Chapter 6
Comedy III v. Gary Saderup. 83 cal.Rptr.2d 533 (1999) 973 P .2d 512
This is a clear open and shut case. Saderup had no legal recourse to fall back on because of the fact Comedy III had him on the Statute, enacted 1971 Civil Code section 3344,” authorizing recovery of damages by any living person whose name, photograph, or likeness has been used for commercial purposes without his or her consent”. (1971) Saderup tried to use the 1st. Amendment to hide behind, but the California Supreme Court ruled it out, and that Saderup appeal was overturned. [Cite: No Doubt v. Activision Publishing] Therefore, to answer the question, yes, their decision in ruling in favor of the plaintiff was correct. Cases like these are very sensitive, whether it is copyright infringement, or anything to do with reproduction of original material,
References: 2008, Garelli Wong & Associates, Inc. v William M. Nichols. Retrieved April 27, 2013, from http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/3294.pdf 1971 Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc. Retrieved April 27, 2013, from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6376074772628774470&q=Comedy+III+v.+Saderup&hl=en&as_sdt=2,11&as_vis=1 No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, 2011 Retrieved April 27, 2013, from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13078943973614295710&q=Comedy+III+v.+Saderup&hl=en&as_sdt=2,11&as_vis=1&scilh=0 Timothy, excellent job with your paper, well reasoned, solid citations. All the best.