To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




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

Law Dictionary

Law Dictionary

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Font size

Civil Procedure Keyed to Marcus

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 103 F.3d 294.

Brief Fact Summary. Zuk (Plaintiff) alleged that Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute of the Medical College of Pennsylvania (Defendant) was infringing on Plaintiff’s copyrights by selling videos that he made while working for them. Defendant moved for dismissal and sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to conduct an inquiry into the facts and the law. Plaintiff’s attorney, Lipman (Appellant) appeals from an order imposing sanctions against him in the sum of $15,000 and Defendant’s counsel fees.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Rule 11 sanctions are proper when counsel fails to make an adequate inquiry into both the facts and the law, which is reasonable under the circumstances.

Facts. Plaintiff, a psychologist on the Defendant’s faculty, taped two of his therapy sessions. Defendant made them available for rental through its library. Plaintiff also wrote a book, containing transcripts of the therapy sessions. In 1975, Plaintiff registered the book with the United States Copyright Office. Five years later, Plaintiff requested that all copies of the films be returned to him, but Defendant ignored the request. In 1995, Appellant filed suit on Plaintiff’s behalf alleged that Defendant was renting out the films and thereby infringed his copyright. Defendant moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b), and mailed a notice to Appellant of its intention to move for sanctions under Rule 11 on grounds that Appellant filed to conduct an inquiry into the facts and law. The district court granted the Motion to Dismiss and found that the copyright of the book afforded protection to the films. It also found that Defendant’s use thereof was not infringement, and that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The court subsequently entered an order for attorney’s fees and sanctions against Plaintiff and Appellant, who are joint and severally liable to the Defendant for counsel fees in the amount of $15,000. Plaintiff settled his liability with the Defendant in the amount of $6,250, leaving the appellant liable for $8,750. Appellants appealed.

Issue. Were sanctions under 28 U.S.C.A. Section: 1927 and Rule 11 proper?

See More Course Videos

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following