September 29, 2009
Upcoming Supreme Court Argument: Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (Wednesday 10/7)
First Wednesday brings another argument that may be of interest to our readers: Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (No. 08-103). The question presented is:
Does 17 U.S.C. s. 411(a) restrict the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts over copyright infringement actions?
The case revisits the ongoing problem of how to distinguish jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional requirements (see, e.g., Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006)), and may also examine the availability of supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. s. 1367).
The Supreme Court docket is here, and the Second Circuit's decision is at 509 F.3d 116 2d Cir. 2007). The procedural posture is somewhat unusual, as the briefs (courtesy of the ABA) indicate...
- Brief for Petitioners
- Brief for Respondents Pogrebin et al. in Support of Petitioners
- Brief for the Muchnick Respondents
- Amicus Brief for the American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Petitioner
- Amicus Brief by the Solicitor General in Support of Vacatur and Remand
- Amicus Brief for Publishers in Support of Reversal
- Amicus Brief for Court Appointed Attorney in Support of Judgment
Only the last amicus brief listed argues that the Second Circuit's judgment was correct.
For more detailed information, see SCOTUS Blog's wiki on the case; and LII's preview. As reported here, Justice Sotomayor has recused herself from this case.
PS: See here for a preview of Monday's argument (10/5) in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter.
September 29, 2009 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Upcoming Supreme Court Argument: Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick (Wednesday 10/7):
Folks interested in this case might also be interested in a few writings of mine on jurisdictional characterization issues:
"Mandatory Rules," 61 Stanford Law Review 1 (2008), available at http://lawreview.stanford.edu/content/vol61/issue1/Dodson.pdf
"In Search of Removal Jurisdiction," 102 Northwestern University Law Review 55 (2008), available at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n1/55/LR102n1Dodson.pdf
"The Failure of Bowles v. Russell," 631 Tulsa Law Review 43 (2008), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1095376
Posted by: Scott Dodson | Sep 30, 2009 11:36:20 AM