Edwyna W. Brooks v. Dash

Background

This copyright and trademark infringement action concerned the film Mafietta, which was adapted from Brooks’s book series. Brooks and Dash began working together on a film version in July 2015, but their relationship ended, and Brooks paid for the film’s production herself. After defendants marketed and sold the film without Brooks’s consent, she filed this action.

Following a bench trial, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in Brooks’s favor on her copyright claim, awarded her $300,000 in total damages, and issued a permanent injunction. The injunction prohibited Dash and Poppington from “marketing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling, or copying the film without Brooks’s consent.” The court had earlier granted summary judgment for Brooks on her trademark claims.

Twelve days after the injunction issued, non-party Raquel Horn registered a still photograph from the production of Mafietta with the United States Copyright Office. Horn was a member of Poppington and worked on the film’s set. The photograph was later allegedly assigned to Poppington and appeared on the cover of one of Brooks’s books. Horn separately sued Brooks for copyright infringement, and that action was pending in the same district before Judge Nathan.

Brooks’s contempt motion

Brooks asked the court to hold Dash and Poppington in contempt for violating the injunction and sought the return of photographs or other intellectual property relating to the film that was in Poppington’s or Horn’s possession.

The court explained that contempt requires clear and unambiguous language in the order, clear and convincing proof of noncompliance, and a failure to make a reasonable effort to comply. It identified two defects in Brooks’s motion. First, Horn was not a party to the case and was not bound by the injunction. Brooks did not provide support for attributing Horn’s actions to Dash or Poppington. Second, the injunction addressed marketing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling, and copying the film; it did not clearly and unambiguously cover photographs taken in connection with the film. The court therefore denied Brooks’s contempt motion without deciding whether the photograph was legally derived from or owned by Brooks. The court stated that issue would presumably be addressed in the separate copyright action.

Motions for sanctions

The defendants sought $1,200 in attorneys’ fees as sanctions against Brooks and her counsel. They relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court noted that Rule 11 generally requires an opposing party to provide 21 days’ notice before filing a sanctions motion, allowing the accused attorney an opportunity to correct the alleged misconduct. The court also explained that sanctions under § 1927 require clear evidence that claims were entirely without legal support and brought in bad faith.

Brooks pointed out that defendants had not followed Rule 11’s 21-day notice requirement and argued that her contempt motion was brought in good faith and supported by facts. She also sought sanctions against defendants for filing their sanctions motion.

The court denied both sanctions requests. It stated that Brooks’s contempt motion was “utterly without merit” but was not “utterly lacking in support.” Because the motion had some support, it did not warrant sanctions. The court also found no reason to sanction defendants for seeking sanctions based on a motion that lacked merit.

Disposition

Judge Rakoff denied Brooks’s motion for contempt and denied defendants’ cross-motion for sanctions. He also denied Brooks’s request to sanction defendants and directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entries 106 and 107.