Sorenson v. Wolfson
170 F. Supp. 3d 622
| S.D.N.Y. | 2016Background
- Sorenson sued Wolfson for copyright infringement and fraud related to condominium floor and roof plans; case dismissed with prejudice.
- Court previously found Sorenson not the author and that Sorenson committed fraud on the Copyright Office; Rooker-Feldman barred the fraud claim.
- Sorenson sought post-trial relief under Rules 52 and 59 to reopen the record for Ernst’s testimony; relief denied in Sorenson II.
- Wolfson moved for Rule 11 sanctions, and for attorneys’ fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. §§ 505 and 1325, and § 1927 plus inherent powers; all motions were opposed by Sorenson.
- The court denied all Wolfson motions, including sanctions, § 505/1325 fees, and § 1927/inherent-power sanctions, and closed the docket.
- On remand, a separate related matter notes a $75,000 award in a different case under § 505, indicating post-decision fee outcomes vary by context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions are warranted | Sorenson argues the post-trial arguments were meritorious | Wolfson contends the post-trial motion was meritless and sanctionable | Sanctions denied; not patently unreasonable |
| Whether § 505 fees are recoverable and timely | Wolfson seeks fees under § 505 as prevailing party | Sorenson objects to timeliness and procedural deficiencies | § 505 motion timely but procedurally deficient; fees denied on merits |
| Whether § 1325 fee award applies | Wolfson contends § 1325 applies due to fraud on Copyright Office | Sorenson argues § 1325 does not apply to architectural plans under Vessel Hull Design Protection Act | § 1325 does not apply; motion denied |
| Whether sanctions under § 1927 or inherent powers are warranted | Wolfson argues Sorenson’s conduct warrants sanctions | Sorenson’s conduct not shown to be in bad faith or warranting sanctions | Denied; no clear showing of bad faith or multiplier effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Weyant v. Okst, 198 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 1999) (timing of postjudgment motions affects finality and fees timing)
- Eastway Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1985) (caution in granting Rule 11 sanctions; balance of interests)
- MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Group Equip. Fin., Inc., 73 F.3d 1253 (2d Cir. 1996) (objective standard of reasonableness for Rule 11)
- Gutierrez v. Fox, 141 F.3d 425 (2d Cir. 1998) (affirmative duty to inquire into the viability of a pleading)
- Agee v. Paramount Commc’ns, Inc., 114 F.3d 395 (2d Cir. 1997) (bad faith and § 1927 standards require clear evidence)
- Woodhaven Homes & Realty, Inc. v. Hotz, 396 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2005) (context on § 505 awards when separate circuits address related issues)
- American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers v. Am. Soc. of Composers, 627 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (statutory interpretation framework for ambiguous language)