Hay v. Bolonik

Background

Bruce Hay, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Kera Bolonik for breach of contract. Hay alleged that he and Bolonik agreed in 2019 to co-author a book about Hay’s experiences with Maria-Pia Shuman and Mischa Shuman and to share equally in proceeds from the book and any related movie or television project. He also alleged that neither party would write a separate book on the subject or find another co-author without the other’s permission.

Hay claimed that Bolonik later prepared and sold a book proposal to HarperCollins without his knowledge, involvement, or permission. He also alleged that Bolonik changed the proposed television project in ways he opposed and that the resulting conflict caused a television offer to be withdrawn. Hay sought relief for the alleged lost book, television, and related income opportunities.

Motion to Dismiss

Bolonik moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. She primarily argued that claim preclusion, also called res judicata, barred Hay’s lawsuit because he could have brought these claims in an earlier related proceeding. She alternatively argued that Hay had not adequately pleaded breach of contract.

The court held that claim preclusion barred the action based on the earlier proceeding. That earlier case had involved a final judgment on the merits and the same parties. The court focused on whether Hay’s current claims could have been raised there.

Applying New York’s transaction-based approach, the court found that the earlier claims and the current claims arose from closely related artistic collaborations concerning essentially the same story. The court emphasized the overlap in the parties, subject matter, timeline, witnesses, evidence, requested money damages, and jury demands. It also found that Hay knew about the book and television issues before filing the earlier case and therefore could have included the current claims then. The court rejected Hay’s argument that separating the claims was a necessary litigation strategy.

Because claim preclusion resolved the case, the court did not reach Bolonik’s alternative arguments concerning the later related proceeding or the sufficiency of Hay’s contract allegations.

Request for Filing Injunction

Bolonik also asked the court to permanently prevent Hay from filing additional actions related to the facts of this case or his earlier related proceedings without first obtaining the court’s permission. The court considered factors concerning a litigant’s history of duplicative or harassing lawsuits, motive, representation, burdens imposed on the parties and court, and whether other sanctions would be sufficient.

The court noted that this was Hay’s third action in the district concerning the retelling of his relationship with the Shumans. It nevertheless concluded that the three actions did not yet establish the kind of vexatious litigation needed to restrict Hay’s court access. The court also found Bolonik’s proposed injunction too broad because it could cover potentially meritorious claims.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Bolonik’s motion to dismiss, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. He denied Bolonik’s motion to enjoin Hay from filing related lawsuits without prejudice to renewal. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.