Counsel Concerns

Rule 11 Sanctions; Copyright Complaint

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel in a copyright-infringement suit. Robinson v. Double R Records, 04 Civ. 4120(KMW). Rule 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for sanctions against counsel for frivolous claims. The sanctioning court noted that the district court had previously found '[i]t is settled law that, because one cannot infringe his own copyright, a joint copyright owner cannot sue his co-owner for infringement ' Consequently, Plaintiff [Larry] Robinson does not have a cause of action against his [song] co-author [defendant Gary] Shiebler.'

The district court had also previously noted on a claim for compulsory-license royalties by two other plaintiffs, that 'Plaintiffs allege that 'at no time have Defendants obtained a compulsory license pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Sec. 115, [which] 'forecloses the possibility of a compulsory license.' The provisions of Section 115 ' are therefore inapplicable to this case.' The sanctioning court then determined 'it was 'patently clear' that these claims had 'no chance of success' and that sanctions are warranted under Rule 11(b)(2).'

But the sanctioning court found no violations of either Rule 11(b)(3) (i.e., for lack of evidentiary support) considering there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs had given the defendants an implied license to distribute the plaintiffs' songs on CD, or of Rule 11(b)(1) (i.e., for litigating for an improper purpose) considering the previous denial of summary judgment for the defendants.

Rule 11 Sanctions; Copyright Complaint

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel in a copyright-infringement suit. Robinson v. Double R Records, 04 Civ. 4120(KMW). Rule 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for sanctions against counsel for frivolous claims. The sanctioning court noted that the district court had previously found '[i]t is settled law that, because one cannot infringe his own copyright, a joint copyright owner cannot sue his co-owner for infringement ' Consequently, Plaintiff [Larry] Robinson does not have a cause of action against his [song] co-author [defendant Gary] Shiebler.'

The district court had also previously noted on a claim for compulsory-license royalties by two other plaintiffs, that 'Plaintiffs allege that 'at no time have Defendants obtained a compulsory license pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Sec. 115, [which] 'forecloses the possibility of a compulsory license.' The provisions of Section 115 ' are therefore inapplicable to this case.' The sanctioning court then determined 'it was 'patently clear' that these claims had 'no chance of success' and that sanctions are warranted under Rule 11(b)(2).'

But the sanctioning court found no violations of either Rule 11(b)(3) (i.e., for lack of evidentiary support) considering there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiffs had given the defendants an implied license to distribute the plaintiffs' songs on CD, or of Rule 11(b)(1) (i.e., for litigating for an improper purpose) considering the previous denial of summary judgment for the defendants.