Zonis v. Grubman

Background

Peter Zonis, a professional artist proceeding without counsel, sued Lizzie Grubman, Howard Lorber, Neal Sroka, and Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC. Zonis alleged that Grubman hired him to recreate fifteen to twenty oil-on-paper paintings on canvas for use in high-end real estate properties owned by Lorber, Sroka, and Douglas Elliman Realty, but then refused to pay him. He later learned that photographs of his work alongside certain celebrity clients were being offered for sale online and alleged that Defendants wrongly profited from those sales.

The court interpreted the complaint as asserting copyright infringement and state-law claims, principally breach of contract and possibly quasi-contract and fraud. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b) and 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Copyright Claim

The court explained that a copyright-infringement claim requires allegations showing ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements. Although copyright registration is not required to obtain copyright protection, registration or preregistration generally is required before filing an infringement lawsuit concerning a United States work.

The complaint did not allege that any of the works at issue had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office before the lawsuit was filed. Zonis asserted in opposition that he had been “copyrighted” under several names, but the attached documents showed only registrations of website domains with GoDaddy.com and possibly another domain provider. Because the complaint and opposition papers did not allege timely registration of the works, the court dismissed the copyright-infringement claim.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court considered whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case. The court applied the general rule that state claims should ordinarily be dismissed when the federal claims are dismissed. It found no reason to depart from that rule because the case was at a relatively early stage and state-law claims predominated. The court dismissed Zonis’s state-law claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.

Amendment and Disposition

The court denied leave to amend the complaint. It reasoned that the copyright-registration problem could not be cured by filing a better complaint after the lawsuit began, Zonis had already received an opportunity to amend in response to the dismissal motion, and he had not requested permission to file an amended complaint or identified facts that would cure the stated problems.

The court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, and ordered the case closed. It also directed the Clerk to mail Zonis a copy of the opinion and order.