Sample Technology Essay Paper on Case Studies: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora and Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball

Case Studies: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora and Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball

Case Study 1: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora

This case involved two parties, one Mr. Oldfield, a U.S. citizen living in Florida, and Pueblo de Bahia Lora, a corporation in Costa Rica with a famous fish resort named “Parrot Bay Village.” In one of Mr. Oldfield’s visits to the fish resort, he sustained an injury while riding on a boat and attributed the injury to the boat owner’s negligence. As a result, Mr. Oilfield filed a lawsuit against the organization “Pueblo De Bahia Lora” that saw the federal court award a default judgment amounting to 75,000 USD, a decision that was later appealed by Pueblo De Bahia Lora (Clausen, 2009).

Facts of the Case

In this case, one party filed a lawsuit against another party for sustaining injuries in one of the latter’s facilities known as Parrot Bay Village. The party that filed the lawsuit believed that he sustained injuries as a result of negligence on the part of an employee of Parrot Bay Village. The parties involved in this case were Mr. Oldfield and Pueblo De Bahia Lora, a Costa Rican Corporation, which in this context is a foreign entity (Clausen, 2009). The plaintiff, Mr. Oldfield’s move to take action was motivated by various factors. He believed that under “Long arm statute” and “diversity of citizenship,” the Costa Rican Corporation was to be held liable for the injuries sustained as a result of its service provision. However, Pueblo argued that the district court of Florida lacked jurisdiction over the case at hand and went ahead to appeal the court’s decision.

Discussion of the Issue

Legal: The legal questions that come up, in this case, are whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction over cases where U.S. citizens and foreign firms conflict and whether Pueblo as a corporation could be held liable for the injuries sustained by Mr. Oilfield due to the alleged negligence on the part of the boat owner.

Public Policy: A public policy question, in this case, is whether U.S. courts should be allowed to have jurisdictions over cases involving foreign entities. Could this not result in numerous lawsuits against U.S. firms located in other countries?

Values in Conflict: What is more important in this case is the sovereignty of Costa Rica as a nation where it has powers to handle cases of incidences happening within its boundaries. Mr. Oldfield’s right to safety and protection is not important in this case.

Practicality: It is impossible for a U.S. citizen living in the U.S. to file a lawsuit against a foreign entity that does not operate or have assets in the United States.

Discussion of Arguments

According to U.S. federal law, state courts only have jurisdiction over cases where the events leading to the case happened within the state and if the defendants in the case are residents of the particular state (Oxford Dictionaries Staff, 2011). However, since the plaintiff sustained injuries in one of the defendant’s facilities outside the U.S., the district court in Florida had no jurisdiction over the case. Also, the issue of conflict in the case is negligence on the part of the defendant’s employee. The plaintiff had to prove negligence based on elements such as the duty of care, unreasonable behavior, injury, and causation. Seemingly, there is no unreasonable behavior that led to the plaintiff’s injury, and there was no close relationship between the corporation’s behavior and the injury. Thus, the plaintiff’s claims of negligence on the part of the boat owner cannot be proved.

In conclusion, the federal court remanded the default judgment made by the district court of Florida holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the case. This implies that the judgment was void. The federal court also ruled that there was no relationship between Parrot Bay and the United States meaning that it was unacceptable to subject the corporation to U.S. jurisdiction. From a Christian perspective, it is important to show fairness when punishing individuals for causing injury to others. It cannot be said that the boat owner injured Mr. Oldfield intentionally, and therefore punishing both the owner and the corporation is not acceptable from a Christian viewpoint. Thus, I do agree with the federal court’s decision to quash the judgment of the district court.

References

Clausen, J. A. (2009). Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Activities: Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, SA-The Eleventh Circuit Finally Discusses Zippo but Leaves Lower Courts Needing More Guidance. Fla. Coastal L. Rev.11, 53. Retrieved from https://www.fcsl.edu/sites/fcsl.edu/files/Clausen%20II_Web.pdf

Oxford Dictionaries Staff. (2011). American International Law Cases 2009 (Vol. 5). Oxford University Press, Incorporated. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=2EdYAgAAQBAJ&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=OLDFIELD+V.+PUEBLO+DE+BAHIA+LORA&source=bl&ots=RLWrhMQiRK&sig=IOcB76TYrmAlyl56XcKPf81s7c4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo2qvpqrfZAhXOWsAKHVt9D1I4ChDoAQgpMAE#v=onepage&q=OLDFIELD%20V.%20PUEBLO%20DE%20BAHIA%20LORA&f=false

Case Study 2: C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball

In this case, there was a license agreement between CDM Fantasy Sports and the Major League Baseball Players’ Association. Based on the agreement, CDM used names and playing records of players of Major League Baseball in online fantasy baseball games although the two disagreed upon the expiry of the license in 2004. Major League Baseball argued that CDM could not use its player records and statistics after the expiry of the license. This disagreement was followed by a declaratory relief action filed against Major League Baseball by CDM. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CBC, a decision that was appealed by Major League Baseball and the Players Association (Kaburakis, 2008).

Facts of the Case

The parties involved in the case were CBC Distribution and Marketing, Inc. and the Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. Another party involved in the case was the Major League Baseball Players Association. CBC claimed that it had the right to use the names as well as information of Major League Baseball’s players in connection with its online fantasy baseball products (Kaburakis, 2008). The plaintiff’s (CBC) move to take this action was motivated by the fact that its products did not violate rights of publicity belonging to the league baseball players as claimed by Major League Baseball.

Discussion of the Issue

Legal: The legal question that arises, in this case, is whether CBC was infringing state-law rights of publicity belonging to players of Major League Baseball. Apparently, after the expiry of the license, CBC was not in violation of rights of publicity belonging to the players.

Public Policy: A public policy question that arises, in this case, is to what extent firms should be allowed to use individuals’ information and statistics in their business operations. In this case, there is the claim that CBC only used names but not images of Major League Baseball players meaning that it did not violate their rights of publicity.

Values in Conflict: What is more important in this case is that CBC did not use the images of Major League Baseball players, and thus, their right to privacy or publicity was not violated. The Major League Baseball’s claim that the use of the players’ information and records violated their publicity is less important in this case.

Practicality: It is impractical for Major League Baseball to argue that CBC was in violation of the players’ right of publicity in their playing records and names yet CBC did not use the images of the players but used only their names and publicly-known statistics.

Discussion of Arguments

According to U.S. law, specifically the First Amendment, which applies to Fantasy Sports’ fantasy baseball games, Fantasy Sports have a free speech right to use baseball players’ names and playing records even if they have a right of publicity (Mead, 2007). This means that Major League Baseball has no right to prevent using its players’ names and playing records and neither is Major League Baseball allowed to deny it licensure that allows the same.

In conclusion, in this case, the federal court’s Judge Medler ruled that players including those of the Major League Baseball have no right of publicity in their playing records and names and that even if they did the Fantasy Sports did not in any way violate the rights as claimed by Major League Baseball and the Major League Players’ association. The court also ruled that Fantasy Sports had a free speech right to use the information even if there was a right of publicity. From a Christian perspective, people actions should not be influenced by ill motives. In this case, the Major League Baseball’s claims were based on ill motives and either wanted to extort money from the CBC or wanted it to run out of business. People and organizations such as Major League Baseball must not make decisions based on ill motives that undermine processes.

References

Kaburakis, A. (2008). CBC Distribution and Marketing, Inc., v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, LP, 505 F. 3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007). International Journal of Sport Communication1(2), 241-245. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anastasios_Kaburakis/publication/228227300_CBC_Distribution_and_Marketing_Inc_v_Major_League_Baseball_Advanced_Media_L_P_505_F_3d_818_8th_Cir_2007/links/00b4953ae37b5992e4000000.pdf

Mead, D. (2007). CBC Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, LP: Why Major League Baseball Struck Out and Won’t Have Better Luck in its Next Trip to the Plate. Minn. JL Sci. & Tech.8, 715. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=mjlst