EMI Latin v. Bautista

2003 WL 470333 (2003)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

EMI Latin v. Bautista

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2003 WL 470333 (2003)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

In 1998, the Kumbia Kings band (the Kings) entered into an exclusive recording agreement (the 1998 agreement) with EMI Latin (EMI) (plaintiff). The 1998 agreement contained a rerecording provision barring the Kings from performing any of the music produced under the agreement for anyone other than EMI for a period of five years following delivery of the original recording or the termination of the 1998 agreement, whichever occurred later. Francisco Bautista (defendant) joined the Kings after the Kings recorded their first album for EMI and signed onto the Kings’ bandmember contract. The bandmember contract bound Bautista to the terms of the 1998 agreement and required Bautista to perform exclusively for the Kings until the Kings had completed three new albums or until the bandmember contract was terminated. In January 2002, after the release of the Kings’ second album, Bautista was fired. Shortly after, Bautista recorded two original songs, “Don’t Want to Try” and “Count on Me” (the original songs). In April 2002, the Kings and EMI terminated the 1998 agreement and the bandmember contract. The Kings and EMI then entered into a new agreement (the 2002 agreement) that, in relevant part, extended the rerecording prohibition period for songs recorded and delivered before the 1998 agreement’s termination. In January 2003, Bautista agreed to record his original songs (the recordings) for inclusion on the Kings’ third album, entitled 4. However, shortly after recording, Bautista commenced discussions with Sony Music Entertainment and requested a return of the recordings. EMI filed for a preliminary injunction barring Bautista from (1) rerecording the original songs for anyone other than EMI or (2) entering into an agreement with a music company other than EMI. Bautista countered and filed for a preliminary injunction barring EMI from manufacturing and distributing the recordings of his original songs.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pauley, III, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership