## Facts

- A photographer sued an artist management company for copyright infringement, alleging the photograph had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
- Plaintiff’s counsel, Richard Liebowitz and his firm, repeatedly failed to comply with court orders during pretrial management, including mediation-related directives and scheduling obligations.
- Defense counsel investigated and found the photograph identified in the complaint was not registered when the action was filed, contrary to the complaint’s allegation.
- Counsel initially characterized the registration problem as a clerical error but later admitted he had not checked Copyright Office records before filing suit.
- The court found multiple inaccurate or false statements to the court about compliance with mediation orders, the registration’s status and timing, and counsel’s knowledge of the registration problem.
- The court credited that the defense (represented pro bono) and the court expended substantial time addressing conduct that should have been avoided by reasonable pre-suit diligence and truthful litigation conduct.
- Defendant moved for sanctions; the merits of the infringement claim were no longer at issue because the sanctions proceedings were collateral to the terminated action.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiff’s counsel and his law firm should be sanctioned for bad-faith litigation conduct, including a material false allegation about copyright registration, lack of reasonable pre-suit investigation, violations of court orders, and misrepresentations to the court.
2. What monetary and non-monetary sanctions were appropriate under the court’s inherent authority, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (including Rules 11 and 16/37), and applicable local rules and professional obligations.

## Decision

- The court imposed sanctions on Richard Liebowitz and his law firm.
- The court found the complaint’s registration allegation was a material misrepresentation because copyright registration is a prerequisite to filing an infringement action for U.S. works.
- The court found counsel did not conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry and compounded the failure with misleading statements and repeated noncompliance with court orders.
- The court ordered monetary sanctions, including payment of defendant’s reasonable fees and costs attributable to the misconduct and additional financial penalties payable to the court.
- The court imposed non-monetary sanctions requiring service of the sanctions opinion on the firm’s current clients and filing of the opinion on the dockets of specified current and future cases for a defined period.
- The court referred the matter to the court’s Grievance Committee for potential disciplinary proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may sanction attorneys under its inherent power for bad-faith conduct and abuse of the judicial process, including conduct that threatens the integrity of proceedings.
- Rule 11 requires an attorney to conduct an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances before asserting factual contentions in a pleading; pleading a statutory precondition (such as copyright registration) without verification can warrant sanctions.
- Rules 16 and 37 permit sanctions for failure to comply with scheduling, pretrial, and other court orders; persistent noncompliance can justify escalating sanctions.
- Misrepresentations to the court, including misleading statements in sworn submissions, support findings of bad faith and justify deterrent sanctions beyond fee shifting.
- In selecting sanctions, courts may consider prejudice to the opposing party, burden on judicial resources, prior misconduct, and the need for deterrence; sanctions may include disclosure measures and disciplinary referrals when lesser responses have been ineffective.

## Conclusion

The court sanctioned plaintiff’s copyright counsel and his firm for filing a complaint containing an unverified and false registration allegation, failing to conduct a reasonable pre-suit inquiry, repeatedly disobeying court orders, and making misrepresentations to the court, imposing both monetary penalties and broader remedial measures to deter further misconduct and protect the judicial process.


Usherson v. Bandshell Artist Mgmt., 2020 WL 3483661 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020)