Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
November 02, 2015

New York Federal Court Dismisses Copyright Plaintiff's Suit Against Former Lawyers

In 2003, Carla Boone sued artists Fabolous and Pharrell Williams and related entities by alleging the defendants' song rap song “Young'n (Holla Back)” infringed on the song “Holla Back” to which Boone's company had the rights. At the New York federal district court level, Boone was represented by what today are two firms: Codispoti & Associates and Mancinelli & Associates. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted pre-trial summary judgment for the Fabolous defendants. The district court determined: ” The presence of the phrase 'holla back,' rapped in an eighth note, eighth note, quarter note rhythmic pattern in the hook of each song is too common to be protectable.” Boone v. Jackson, 03 CV 8661 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Boone represented herself pro se on appeal; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Boone v. Jackson, 206 Fed. Appx. 30 (2d. Cir. 2006). In 2015, Boone sued her former lawyers in the Southern District, including by alleging fraud. She claimed the lawyers falsely led her “to believe that a [j]ury [t]rial would occur,” that they knew or should have known most copyright infringement cases don't reach the trial stage. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield dismissed Boone's suit against the lawyers. First, District Judge Schofield noted that “the statements about the likelihood of defeating summary judgment and obtaining a jury trial were 'mere expression[s] of future expectations' that did not constitute actionable fraud.” The district judge went on to find that, even if Boone's claim was analyzed as one for malpractice, “the Complaint fails to allege negligence as it 'essentially alleges ' an “error of judgment”' '.” In any case, a malpractice claim would be time-barred by New York's three-year statute of limitations. “Here,” Judge Schofield observed, “Defendants ceased their representation of Plaintiff after the Copyright Action was dismissed by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 30, 2005, and therefore any claim for legal malpractice against Defendants accrued by that date.” Boone v. Codispoti & Associates P.C., 15 Civ. 01391. '


Nicollette Sheridan's Retaliation Claim in L.A. Superior Court Needn't First Be Filed with California Labor Commissioner

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.