$250,000+ Sanctions Against Copyright Lawyer Appealed

clearly jeopardize lahiri's lanham act and parallel unfair opinion by judge conlon kornarens contends the initial denial of summary judgment defendants' contemporaneous billing records. because defen- convincing evidence of misconduct supported bad faith find- discretion. welch v. metro. life ins. co., 480 f.3d 942, 948 held a hearing before issuing its detailed 21-page order grant- tionable under the court's inherent power). "(film company)" into a quotation from gee pee to support authority); f.j. hanshaw enters., inc. v. emerald river dev., kornarens' misrepresentations of indian law evidenced his iv $894,539.44 in attorneys' fees and costs. the award is explic- anthony kornarens, esquire, frivolous copyright infringement claim and litigating that film producer for financial compensation. pursuit of a copy- competition claims. the award therefore excludes all fees and conclusion united states copyright claim created by registration of a 21- settlement as purportedly recognizing lahiri as the co-owner owned the thoda copyright under indian law was rejected by film produced in india, under an agreement with an indian v company; the composer has no copyright interest absent an russell j. frackman, mitchell silberberg & knupp, llp, los court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees over the five-year history of this litigation, three different judges of the proposition that a film producer does not have a copyright discretion. 8135lahiri v. universal music and video united states. the district court did not err in its factual find- for hire), � 201(b) (the employer or other person for whom the the excess fees and costs caused by his conduct. 28 u.s.c. united states district court for the central district of california were district court's bad faith finding is supported by clear and con- twenty-one years later, kornarens filed suit on lahiri's demonstrates kornarens misled the district court by use of a year old composition after his lanham act and unfair compe- ing and imposition of sanctions under the court's inherent thoda copyright infringement claim under the united states strates by clear and convincing evidence that kornarens 8127 conlon, district judge: lahiri on the ground that he did not own a valid copyright in guage, but did not convey or recognize co-ownership of the issue of copyright ownership between lahiri and sare- agreement to the contrary. had kornarens, a self-described infringement claim. in its 21-page order, the district court summary judgment order in defendants' favor (lahiri v. universal music the district court without analysis. contentious litigation claim in bad faith. the record supports the district court's years. kornarens' amended complaint asserted a contrived exercised with restraint and discretion. the record demon- reasonably incurred because of such conduct." (9th cir. 2007) (citing california state bar's committee on involved non-film music. kornarens inserted the parenthetical engaged in a pattern of bad faith litigation conduct over an excerpts of thoda in violation of the lanham act, 15 u.s.c. of a thoda copyright, ultimately were consolidated before the docket entries and three rounds of trial preparation. sion is in english. indeed, there is nothing legally remarkable ii grant of certiorari in dastar. lahiri composed thoda for a ment explicitly referred to co-ownership of the thoda case and correct errors while the case is still pending. chris- before: harry pregerson and robert r. beezer, $10,808.76 in costs, under 28 u.s.c. � 19271 i ted to the district court. cated on the meritorious contention lahiri lacked a copyright precludes imposition of sanctions because the decision litigation expenses for his dismissed lanham act and unfair 1 claims to producers of tangible goods. dastar corp. v. twen- vincing evidence. three months later the supreme court granted certiorari in abuse of discretion because it would be impossible to deter- copyright claim. accordingly, sanctions were not an abuse of sanctions is upheld, the amount should not exceed right claim without inquiring whether lahiri composed thoda renewed summary judgment motion against lahiri. after a for publication case assigned to a new judge who would be unfamiliar with cause the judge's recusal by retaining the judge's former law bappi lahiri, an individual; for the ninth circuit summary judgment on their conflicting claims to ownership see, e.g., 17 u.s.c � 101 (a work made for hire includes a thorough analysis, the district court concluded lahiri did not against lahiri's copyright infringement claim, and excludes explains in detail its reduction of defendants' claimed 993-94 (9th cir. 2001) (attorney's reckless misstatements of the court's inherent power); fink v. gomez, 239 f.3d 989, apportioned only half of the billings to lahiri. this was a con- defendants then moved for $800,752.00 in 8134 lahiri v. universal music and video copyright act, 1957, and the indian supreme court's inter- conduct for more than five years. clear and convincing evi- settlement agreement that deceptively used ownership lan- require expert advice. generally, a composer who creates a 1136, 1140-43 (9th cir. 2003) (composer of television series claim. issued its opinion limiting lanham act false designation gama, purporting to moot the need for a stay and the cross- [2] kornarens attempted to justify his untenable interpreta- g.a. no. 2756 of 2001 and c.s. no. 356 of 2001, for the (1988). similarly, kornarens' argument that he acted in good & video distrib., inc., 513 f. supp. 2d 1172 (c.d. cal. 2007)), but volun- the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding attorneys' fees and $93,787.44 in costs under � 1927 and the 8139lahiri v. universal music and video and andre ramelle young ("defendants") used unauthorized gee pee films, pvt. ltd. v. pratik chowdhury and others, defendants sought. tangible goods, and excluded lanham act protection for [6] the district court used a traditional lodestar analysis of and carefully considered attorneys' fees and costs. findings and imposition of sanctions. the parties agreed that gama. the district court credited kornarens' characterization motion picture if the parties expressly agree in a signed, writ- instrument); warren v. fox family worldwide, inc., 328 f.3d court's imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of dis- thoda for compensation under an agreement with the film's tion of thoda, he would have known lahiri had no copyright decision: he cited the immaterial concurring opinion as the law and fact, combined with an improper purpose, are sanc- the district court carefully excluded inadequately documented tieth century fox film corp., 539 u.s. 23, 37 (2003). three cited by the district court justified the imposition of sanctions. kornarens ignores the record. the district court's bad faith (9th cir. 2000). an attorney who unreasonably and vexa- of a thoda copyright. iii the parties expressly agree otherwise in a signed, written supported by clear and convincing evidence. this court has entity form unknown; andre and lahiri's consolidated copyright claims, the district court of the copyright; the agreement only applied "ownership" to costs incurred before september 1, 2003. repeated misrepresentations of indian copyright law clearly his misrepresentation the case involved indian film music. increase time by 10 to 30%). the district court further 8132 lahiri v. universal music and video authors of ideas, concepts or communications embodied in the defendants-appellees. tition claims were placed in jeopardy by the supreme court's ensued for three more years, resulting in an additional 233 movant-appellant, no. 09-55111 in reducing defendants' recovery of costs by $82,978.68, motions for summary judgment between lahiri and sare- we have jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. � 1291. a district finding was based on the cumulative effect of his litigation tion of indian copyright law by misrepresenting the iprs interest in songs that it commissions. gee pee expressly ten instrument that the work shall be considered a work made saregama india limited ("saregama"). pramod films, not lahiri, owned the thoda copyright as a argued and submitted mount to bad faith and warranted sanctions under � 1927 and interest in music he composed for hire. submitted an agreement that he mischaracterized as resolving aftermath records, a business inherent sanctioning power. kornarens appeals, contending circuit judges, and suzanne b. conlon,* district judge. of the agreement as resolving conflicting copyright ownership dence supports the district court's conclusion that kornarens dastar, lahiri registered a copyright in thoda with the united 3 thoda copyright, saregama sued defendants for infringement. not addressed the burden of proof required for a sanctions ing defendants' motion, but substantially reducing the award evidenced his recklessness and bad faith. thoda; defendants argued that saregama owned the copyright anthony kornarens is an attorney specializing in copyright assigned to this case. delaware corporation; interscope opinion [5] kornarens argues that no single instance of misconduct dants used single entries for tasks pertaining to both saregama missed his lanham act and parallel unfair competition claims a split of an anticipated recovery in this litigation. the record the northern district of illinois, sitting by designation. 4 � 1927. recklessness suffices for � 1927 sanctions, but sanc- bad faith in pursuing a frivolous copyright claim for five court's decision was impending, kornarens attempted to firm to defend him against the sanctions motion. the district right in a movie score composed for compensation in the film work specially ordered or commissioned for use as part of a awarded defendants $247,397.28 in attorneys' fees and after summary judgment was entered against lahiri, defendants interest in thoda. defendants' argument that saregama whether the consolidated cases should be stayed, kornarens $21,310.26. however, the district court's sanctions order competition claims. on appeal, kornarens argues he reasonably relied on an goods. an adverse decision by the supreme court would district court contained "mistakes." however, viewed in the [7] the district court reviewed samples from the fee appli- otis d. wright ii, district judge, presiding inc., 244 f.3d 1128, 1143 n.11 (9th cir. 2001) (same). the reasonably inferred that kornarens' intent was to have the united states court of appeals 8130 lahiri v. universal music and video saregama agreed to a 30/70% (respectively) split of any copy- acted recklessly and in bad faith and his conduct caused ceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the and reckless introduction of inadmissible evidence was tanta- tions imposed under the district court's inherent authority sole claim on august 15, 2003, when the district court dis- 1099 (2003). the central issue in dastar was whether lan- weeks later, kornarens amended lahiri's complaint to add a expert in indian law, as well as his unsupported assertion that lahiri and saregama to an indian court for resolution. alter- kornarens represented bappi lahiri, who in 1981 com- thoda. in any case, a court may revisit prior decisions in a records, a corporation; ing on the purported co-ownership settlement agreement, the have a copyright interest in thoda under indian law. lahiri v. itly limited to excess costs and fees incurred in defending only by kornarens. the traditional cat ass'n, inc. v. gil- mandatory fee arbitration's report that block billing may 28 u.s.c. � 1927 provides that an attorney "who so multiplies the pro- 276 f.3d 1091, 1107-08 (9th cir. 2002) (attorney's knowing under dastar. servative approach. the record reflects that kornarens initi- and the court's dastar corp. v. twentieth century fox film corp., 537 u.s. infringement claim in the original complaint. united states district court for the central district of califor- april 9, 2010--pasadena, california *the honorable suzanne b. conlon, united states district judge for or unique about applicable indian law that would reasonably of bad faith was not an abuse of discretion. the district court 2:02-cv-08330-universal music and video producer, pramod films. the parties agreed the law of india natively, defendants moved for summary judgment against [4] after the sanctions motion was filed and the district experienced copyright lawyer, made even a cursory investiga- affirmed. film score for hire forfeits a copyright interest in his work. kornarens challenges the reasonableness of the work made for hire was prepared owns the copyright unless tianson v. colt indus. operating corp., 486 u.s. 800, 817 [8] the district court's authority to sanction attorneys capital, inc. v. carnival air lines, inc., 210 f.3d 1112, 1117 � 1125(a), and engaged in unfair competition under parallel tiously "multiplies the proceedings" may be required to pay under indian law. lahiri and saregama filed cross-motions for work for hire. pramod films later assigned its thoda rights to $258,206.04 award. he suggests that if the imposition of defendants' summary judgment motion against lahiri predi- posed to submit the competing copyright ownership claims by curtis a. cole, matthew levinson, cole pedroza, llp, pasa- filed june 7, 2010 excluded fees incurred because of court-requested supplemen- ated most of the litigation activity resulting in defendants' 8131lahiri v. universal music and video breath, 340 f.3d 829, 834-35 (9th cir. 2003); salstrom v. court's inherent authority to sanction attorney misconduct. under � 1927 and its inherent disciplinary power must be for the central district of california lahiri and saregama's lawsuits, asserting conflicting claims of sacramento, 534 f.3d 1106, 1112 (9th cir. 2008). this was behalf, claiming defendants universal music & video distri- cation and calculated an 80% block billing rate. the district indian supreme court's holding. he repeatedly misquoted "placed [the district court's] imprimatur of propriety" on ings or abuse its discretion in concluding that kornarens' copyright only for purposes of these consolidated cases. rely- quickly settled with saregama. unreasonably protracted and costly litigation over a frivolous citicorp credit servs., inc., 74 f.3d 183, 185 (9th cir. 1996). was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. the sanctions were unwarranted and excessive.2 states copyright office. on june 2, 2003, the supreme court 1977 s.c. 1443. unequivocally, the law of india vests a copy- odw-ctdistribution corporation, a responsible for block billing, and reduced 80% of their billa- court's consideration of this manipulative tactic as evidence [3] kornarens now concedes his written submissions to the plaintiffs, right infringement recovery from defendants, and the agree- trict court did not abuse its discretion in awarding reasonable after the district court requested supplemental briefing on lahiri represented he owned the thoda copyright. the district for hire would be reckless under the laws of either india or the lahiri's copyright claim. the record strongly suggests other- california law for failure to credit lahiri's authorship. kor- award. see, e.g., in re lehtinen, 564 f.3d 1052, 1061 n.4 (9th cretion, and its findings of fact for clear error. pac. harbor claims. contrary to kornarens' representations, lahiri and ments. the law of india is straightforward and the iprs deci- narens' misleading submission of the lahiri-saregama e. indian motion pictures ass'n and others ("iprs"), a.i.r. ham act false designation claims were limited to producers of tal information and made an additional 10% across-the-board the parties dispute whether a bad faith finding must be reduction for excessive and redundant work. moreno v. city tion into the circumstances of lahiri's 21-year old composi- costs, as well as taxable costs not included in defendants' bill law. kornarens was severely sanctioned by the district court los angeles, california, for the defendants-appellees. v. d.c. no. pursuit of lahiri's copyright claim is frivolous, given the for his five-year bad faith pursuit of a frivolous copyright 8138 lahiri v. universal music and video bad faith and recklessness in pursuing lahiri's copyright 2 dena, california, for the movant-appellant. three months after the supreme court granted certiorari in on august 9, 2007, the district court granted defendants' of the thoda copyright. this error resulted in the denial of the protracted history of this litigation.4 nia. defendants moved to stay the consolidated cases and pro- [1] kornarens argues the district court abused its discretion costs. beyond question, kornarens acted recklessly. the dis- pretation of the act in indian performing right soc'y ltd. v. context of the history of this litigation, the court did not abuse wise. the summary judgment denial was predicated on kor- resolution of thoda's ownership is governed by the indian cir. 2009) (declining to address burden because clear and 8136 lahiri v. universal music and video bution corporation, interscope records, aftermath records posed the song thoda for an indian movie. lahiri composed copyright issued a few months earlier. this became lahiri's and affirm. mine with mathematical precision the fees and costs generated we disagree angeles, california, jeffrey d. goldman, loeb & loeb, llp, the sanctions issues were fully briefed and the district court counsel tarily dismissed the appeal. court identified attorneys and paralegals who were primarily its discretion in finding that kornarens acted recklessly and in infringement claim that directly resulted in excess fees and 8137lahiri v. universal music and video require a bad faith finding. see b.k.b. v. maui police dep't, meanwhile, based on pramod films' assignment of the music for hire did not own copyright in the music). court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting similar argu- by sanctioning him for knowingly and recklessly pursuing a opinion excessive fees and costs. an apportioned percentage is not an extended time period. he pursued a meritless copyright restrictive language of a document kornarens himself submit- faith reliance on the settlement agreement in his continued 8133lahiri v. universal music and video saregama india limited, universal music & video distrib., inc., 513 f. supp. 2d 1172 a reasoned exercise of discretion. controls the underlying copyright issues. under indian law, of costs. the significantly reduced award of recoverable costs (c.d. cal. 2007).3 kornarens' client, plaintiff bappi lahiri, appealed the district court's narens, a copyright specialist, did not include a copyright burden of proof issue need not be resolved here because the ramelle young, district court erroneously concluded lahiri was the co-owner appeal from the united states district court ble hours by 30%. this was permissible and not an abuse of