Pickett v. Migos Touring, Inc.

Background

Leander C. Pickett brought a copyright-infringement action against Migos Touring, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, Quality Control Music, LLC, Quavious Marshall, Kiari Cephus, Kirshnick Ball, Joshua Parker, and Grant Decouto. On November 12, 2019, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim.

The defendants separately sought Rule 11 sanctions against Pickett, his counsel Dana Whitfield, and Whitfield’s firm, Sacco & Fillas, LLP. Rule 11 allows sanctions designed to deter baseless filings, and any sanction must be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct. The defendants also sought attorney’s fees and costs under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505.

The court referred both motions to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. His report and recommendation advised granting the motions in part and denying them in part. It recommended $88,818 in Rule 11 sanctions against Pickett, Whitfield, and Sacco & Fillas jointly and severally. It also recommended that defendants recover their reasonable attorney’s fees from Pickett under Section 505. To avoid double recovery, the recommended fee award against Pickett alone was $361,773.60.

After that recommendation, defendants reported that they had reached a confidential settlement with Whitfield and Sacco & Fillas concerning the sanctions. Pickett did not object to the report and recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Court’s Analysis

The court adopted the recommendation awarding defendants $361,773.60 against Pickett alone under Section 505. That amount represented the attorney’s-fee award after accounting for the fees used to calculate the proposed Rule 11 sanctions, so defendants would not recover the same fees twice.

The court treated the Rule 11 sanctions recommendation as moot as to Whitfield and Sacco & Fillas because of their settlement with defendants. It also concluded that no additional sanctions against any party were necessary. The settlement, together with the $361,773.60 fee award against Pickett, was sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct. The court therefore rejected the report and recommendation concerning defendants’ Rule 11 sanctions.

The court also declined to retain jurisdiction to enforce the confidential settlement under its individual practices. It gave the parties until June 29, 2020, to provide a copy of the agreement for the court to endorse or submit revised settlement terms on the public record if they wanted the court to retain jurisdiction.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres adopted the report and recommendation in part and rejected it in part. The defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees under Section 505 was granted to the extent that defendants were awarded $361,773.60 from Pickett alone. The defendants’ motion for sanctions was denied.