Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Dispute Regarding Eminem Royalties, and Criminal, Employment and Immigration Matters

By FindLaw Staff on September 06, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

McCormick v. Adams, No. 09-15546, involved the denial of a petition for habeas relief brought by a prisoner who waived his right to counsel and represented himself at trial and now claimed the waiver was not knowing and voluntary.  The court affirmed over petitioner's claims that 1) the trial court led him to believe he could revoke his Faretta waiver at any time, and that he relied on this promise in waiving his right to counsel; and 2) he made a mid-trial request for counsel that was wrongly denied by the trial court.

In F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records, No. 09-55817, a dispute concerning the percentage of royalties due to plaintiffs under their contracts with defendant in connection with the recordings of the rapper Eminem, the court reversed judgment for defendant where 1) a "Masters Licensed" provision unambiguously applies to permanent downloads and mastertones; and 2) thus, the district court should have granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.

In Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc., No. 07-17221, a sexual harassment case in which a male employee was the victim of a female co-worker, the court reversed summary judgment for defendant where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether: 1) plaintiff was subjected to "verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature"; 2) such conduct was unwelcome; 3) the pervasiveness and the inadequate response by the employer established a jury question of whether a co-worker's overtures led to an abusive environment; 4) defendant's actions were not enough to establish an affirmative defense.

In US v. Munoz-Camarena, No. 09-50088, the court vacated defendant's sentence for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), which cast doubt on the district court's calculation of the recommended Guidelines sentence.

In Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. for Real Estate Educ., Inc., No. 08-56791, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part an order denying counter-claimants damages, attorneys' fees, and costs in an action for trademark infringement, holding that 1) the doctrine of unclean hands does not bar the application of the equitable defense of acquiescence in this instance; 2) plaintiff had permission to use the marks at issue before July 12, 2006; and 3) a remand was proper so that the district court may consider the applicability of plaintiffs' defense of acquiescence in a manner consistent with the circuit court's opinion.

Related Resources

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard