First, RMLC should not need a judicial discovery to ask its own members, on whose behalf it brought this action on the basis of its alleged position of association, for their contacts with GMR. Second, the Court held that neither the iHeart, Townsquare or the licensing of VerStandig Broadcasting are definitive contacts. Finally, with respect to RMLC`s application, neither the honouring judge, Sitarski J., nor the court had any doubts as to whether personal jurisdiction (or the competent jurisdiction, as in the INFRA IV section under discussion) was appropriate. GMR challenged the request for a supplement without qualification and argued that it was an “inexcusable maneuver to manufacture the competency”. Opp. word. Suppl. 2-3 (ECF 92). After RMLC approached GMR in May 2017 to extend the interim agreement, GMR immediately agreed to do so for all RMLC members, except those based in Pennsylvania, “until it received iron assurances that RMLC would not seek to create jurisdiction because of them.” Opp. word.
Suppl. 3 (ECF 92); (see also ECF 90-14). GMR argues that not only is nothing inappropriate with this behavior, it is well established that companies that do not want to submit to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania may decide not to do business with Pennsylvania residents. Opp. word. Suppl. 3 (ECF 92). In addition, she has never refused to do business with radio stations in Pennsylvania. On the contrary, it merely sought agreement on conditions guaranteeing that an extension of the interim licence agreement would not be used to establish personal jurisdiction or jurisdiction, since RMLC would have breached the original interim licensing agreement by using corresponding activities as new allegations in the first amended complaint.
Opp. word. Suppl. 2-4 (ECF 92); (Justifications ECF 90-8, 90-12, 90-14, 90-16). There are four large companies that offer music licenses that you`ve probably heard of: ASCAP, IMC, SESAC and GMR. Each company has different artists and business practices to attract musicians and licensees. Find out what you need to know about each of these licensing organizations, including their size, business practices and the types of artists that are represented. RMLC argues that the recommendation of the Honourable Magistrate Judge Sitarski to refuse the supplement request is due to an inappropriate refusal to consider the “specific Pennsylvania boycott imposed by GMR on radio stations in Pennsylvania from at least May to August 2017 as appropriate contact with the court.” Objs. R-R to 4 (ECF No. 101). RMLC considers this a mistake because it considers that the “boycott” is evidence of the type of contact deemed insufficient in the report and in the recommendation, and independently establishes a prima facie case of jurisdiction and jurisdiction.
Id. RMLC argues that “the evidence of recordings conclusively proves that GMR committed a total boycott of Pennsylvania-based stations from May to August 2017 for reasons other than the attempt to protect their legal arguments.” Objs. R-R to 5 (ECF No. 101). While this argument is not obvious in his face, RMLC argues that the attitude of the case requires the multiplication of these allegations. Objs. R-R to 6 (ECF No. 101). According to the RMLC, the report and recommendation made a mistake on this issue because they did not dissociate the behaviour of the intermediate licence from the GMR boycott. Id. The latter was independent conduct that had nothing to do with the activity related to the interim licensing agreement that the Court of Justice was authorized to consider.
Objs. R-R at 6-8 (ECF No. 101). In addition, RMLC argues that the report and recommendation are incorrectly based on GMR`s potential offer to renew the intermediate licences, given that the boycott took place. Objs. R-R to 9 (ECF No. 101). Finally, RMLC argues that the report and recommendation incorrectly concluded that GMR`s public announcement of the boycott does not constitute intimidation and retaliation.