People of Michigan v. Miquall Molic Abram

Michigan Supreme Court

People of Michigan v. Miquall Molic Abram

DecidedSeptember 25, 2015

Docket151104

StatusPublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Miquall Molic Abram (People of Michigan v. Miquall Molic Abram) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People of Michigan v. Miquall Molic Abram, (Mich. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 25, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

151104 Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano IN RE CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM Richard H. Bernstein, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF SC: 151104th Justices APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, US COA, 9 Circuit: _________________________________________/ 12-17734 PETER DEACON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v PANDORA MEDIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the request to answer the certified question. MCR 7.308(A)(3). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether Deacon has stated a claim against Pandora for violation of the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act, MCL 445.1711 et seq., by adequately alleging that Pandora is in the business of “renting” or “lending” sound recordings, and that he is a “customer” of Pandora, because he “rents” or “borrows” sound recordings from Pandora. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their prior filings.

The Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to file a brief amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. September 25, 2015 d0922 Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 25, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

151104 Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano IN RE CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM Richard H. Bernstein, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF SC: 151104th Justices APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, US COA, 9 Circuit: _________________________________________/ 12-17734 PETER DEACON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v PANDORA MEDIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the request to answer the certified question. MCR 7.308(A)(3). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether Deacon has stated a claim against Pandora for violation of the Michigan Video Rental Privacy Act, MCL 445.1711 et seq., by adequately alleging that Pandora is in the business of “renting” or “lending” sound recordings, and that he is a “customer” of Pandora, because he “rents” or “borrows” sound recordings from Pandora. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their prior filings.

The Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to file a brief amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. September 25, 2015 d0922 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People of Michigan v. Miquall Molic Abram, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-miquall-molic-abram-mich-2015.