Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 294 views

    Zuk v. Eastern Pennsylvania

    Uploaded by

    Laura C
    1) Dr. Zuk sued EPPI for infringing his alleged copyright in films of his 1970s family therapy sessions by continuing to rent the films out after terminating his employment in 1980. 2) The district court sanctioned Dr. Zuk's attorney, Mr. Lipmann, under 28 USCA § 1927 and FRCP Rule 11 for failing to properly investigate the legal and factual basis of the claims before filing the case. 3) The appeals court affirmed that sanctions were appropriate but vacated the type and amount imposed, finding no evidence of bad faith as required under § 1927 and that the sanctions under Rule 11 did not properly consider ability to pay or the non-punitive purpose of deterrence. The

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zuk v. Eastern Pennsylvania

    Uploaded by

    Laura C
    294 views3 pages
    1) Dr. Zuk sued EPPI for infringing his alleged copyright in films of his 1970s family therapy sessions by continuing to rent the films out after terminating his employment in 1980. 2) The district court sanctioned Dr. Zuk's attorney, Mr. Lipmann, under 28 USCA § 1927 and FRCP Rule 11 for failing to properly investigate the legal and factual basis of the claims before filing the case. 3) The appeals court affirmed that sanctions were appropriate but vacated the type and amount imposed, finding no evidence of bad faith as required under § 1927 and that the sanctions under Rule 11 did not properly consider ability to pay or the non-punitive purpose of deterrence. The

    Original Description:

    Zuk case brief for civil procedure

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Dr. Zuk sued EPPI for infringing his alleged copyright in films of his 1970s family therapy sessions by continuing to rent the films out after terminating his employment in 1980. 2) The district court sanctioned Dr. Zuk's attorney, Mr. Lipmann, under 28 USCA § 1927 and FRCP Rule 11 for failing to properly investigate the legal and factual basis of the claims before filing the case. 3) The appeals court affirmed that sanctions were appropriate but vacated the type and amount imposed, finding no evidence of bad faith as required under § 1927 and that the sanctions under Rule 11 did not properly consider ability to pay or the non-punitive purpose of deterrence. The

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    294 views3 pages

    Zuk v. Eastern Pennsylvania

    Uploaded by

    Laura C
    1) Dr. Zuk sued EPPI for infringing his alleged copyright in films of his 1970s family therapy sessions by continuing to rent the films out after terminating his employment in 1980. 2) The district court sanctioned Dr. Zuk's attorney, Mr. Lipmann, under 28 USCA § 1927 and FRCP Rule 11 for failing to properly investigate the legal and factual basis of the claims before filing the case. 3) The appeals court affirmed that sanctions were appropriate but vacated the type and amount imposed, finding no evidence of bad faith as required under § 1927 and that the sanctions under Rule 11 did not properly consider ability to pay or the non-punitive purpose of deterrence. The

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Civil Procedure

    Zuk v. EPPI
    CHAPTER 3: Describing and Defining the Dispute
    B. Describing and Testing the Plaintiffs Claim
    2. Consistency ad Honesty in Pleading
    B. Certification by Signing Rule 11
    NAME:

    FACTS:

    Zuk v. Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute of the Medical College of


    Pennsylvania, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1996, 103 F.3d 294
    o
    o
    o

    PROCEDURE:

    o
    o

    o
    o
    o
    o
    o

    (Dr. Zuk, Lipmann) v. (EPPI) re: rental of films developed in s 1970s


    family therapy sessions
    1975 registered book (derivative work) with transcripts of sessions with US
    Copyright Office
    1980 EPPI furloughed Zuk, films continued to be rented out until Zuk
    attempt recover 1994
    1995 Zuk counsel filed suit on his behalf, infringing his copyright
    June 19, 1995 EPPI file 12(b)(6), opposed, and EPPI gave notice of
    intention to move for sanctions 11(c)(2) on failure to establish factual
    predicate/conduct inquiry into facts
    Court found Zuk had no copyright rights to film, EPPI ownership was not
    infringement, and that Zuks claims barred by SOL anyways
    Aug. 16 EPPI filed motion for attorneys fees under 17 USCA 505; Aug. 31
    opposed
    Sept. 15 EPPI file Rule 11 motion for sanctions; opposed
    Nov. 1 Court order show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be
    imposed for (a) filing the complaint and failing to withdraw it; (b) signing and
    filing each and every document presented
    Dec. 1 respond with declaration reciting facts of case as viewed
    Feb. 19, 1996 s liable to fees of $15,000; Zuk settled for $6,250,
    Lipmann ($8,750) appeals; court uses 28 USCA 1927 and Rule 11 to justify
    court-imposed sanctions

    ISSUE:

    Procedural Issue(s):
    1. Did dist. ct. abuse discretion in awarding sanctions under 28 USCA 1927
    and FRCP Rule 11?
    a. Type of sanction and amount sanctioned applied correct?

    HOLDING:

    Yes. No.

    REASONING:

    Rule: (28 USCA 1927) Any attorney or person admitted to conduct cases who so
    multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be
    required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and
    attorneys fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.
    o Principle purpose is deterrence of intentional and unnecessary delay in
    proceedings
    Sanctioned not for delaying proceedings, but for failure to make inquiry
    into facts and law before filing the case
    o Before a court can order the imposition of attorneys fees under 1927, it

    Civil Procedure
    must find willful bad faith on the part of the offending attorney
    no express or implicit finding of bad faith, only (maybe) negligence of
    Lipmann
    o

    Type and sanction under FRCP 11: purpose of 11 is to deter, not compensate,
    encourages nonmonetary sanctions; Doering v. Union County Bd. Of Chosen
    Freeholders discretion in setting sanction fees must be developed on ability
    to pay; but Lipmann did not expressly ask for sanctions to be mitigated;
    looking at non-punitive purpose of FRCP 11 = error to invoke with comment
    a severe penalty ***re: safe harbor under 11(c)(3) see notes

    DISPOSITION:

    Affirmed only to imposition of sanctions, vacated to type and amount of


    sanctions imposed under FRCP 11 and all vacated under 1927. Remanded for
    further proceedings consistent to Doering.

    NOTES:

    o
    o
    o
    o
    o
    o
    o

    Suas ponte: of own accord; actions by judge taken w/o prior motion or request
    from parties
    Just deserts: punishment or reward that is considered to be what recipient
    deserved
    Copyright Act fee awards to prevailing party but, in this case, can only be
    entered against a party w/ no fee-shifting awards against lawyer, had to be
    justified with 28 USCA 1927 or rule 11
    SCOTUS Chambers v. NASCO - federal courts have inherent power to sanction
    bad faith litigant
    FRCP 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
    FRCP 8(c) SOL is affirmative defense only applies if raises it (party must
    state)
    FRCP 11 operational elements: (a) signature requirement, (b) factual inquiry
    claim evidentiary support (no fishing expedition), (c) legal inquiry, (d)
    harassment 11(b)(1) prohibits actions that needlessly increase cost of
    litigation, (e) later advocating legit basis for filing, later becomes
    unjustified?, (f) safe harbor violator must be warned and invited to desist,
    11(c)(2), postjudgment sanctions okay if comply with safe harbor requirement

    No issues of fact in this case; only issues of law:


    Rule: (FRCP 11(b)(2)) claims, defenses, and other legal contentions be warranted
    by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, notification, or
    reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law
    o Lipmann does not contend new law so, implicit warranted by existing law
    ruled no
    o Fault in registration issue: copyright law
    (17 USCA 106(b)) The copyright in a derivative work does not affect
    of enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
    copyright protection in the preexisting material the copyright in a
    compilation of derivative work extends only to the material
    contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
    preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any
    exclusive right in the preexisting material

    Civil Procedure
    Usually applies to material created by a different author
    Same Au for derivative work, need to explicitly state extension
    of law to apply
    (17 USCA 411(b)) no action for infringement of the copyright in any
    US work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim
    has been made
    Zuk never registered copyright in films?
    ownership issue: personal property law
    (17 USCA 109) If EPPI owns films, then can rent out films
    Penn. SOL on replevin is 2 years; Zuk demanded in 1980 and EPPI
    refused
    EPPI raise adverse possession argument too late for consideration

    Fault in

    21-day safe harbor under FRCP 11(c)(2): appellant said wasnt given 21-day safe
    period before court dismissed action and before he had chance to withdraw
    action. 11(c)(3) on courts own initiative has no safe harbor provision court
    asked for a show cause anyways, so irrelevant defense
    o 1993 amendment made imposition of sanctions discretionary, introduced safe
    harbor, reoriented choice of sanction toward deterrence, away from
    compensation

    You might also like