Pryor Cashman’s successful motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and sanctions following summary judgment dismissing a copyright infringement claim concerning the motion picture "John Q", which starred Denzel Washington, was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 13, 2010.  

In 2005, plaintiff Chitunda Tillman brought an action in federal District Court in Chicago alleging copyright infringement, federal civil rights violations and other claims against New Line Cinema, its parent company, Time Warner, the screenwriter and producers of "John Q", the Writer’s Guild of America and others. After having granted Pryor Cashman’s motion dismissing all but the copyright infringement claims at the inception of the case, the District Court in 2008 granted Pryor Cashman’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Tillman’s copyright infringement claim on the grounds that there was no access to or copying of his screenplay and that there was not, in any event, actionable similarity between his screenplay and "John Q."  

Following the Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of Pryor Cashman’s successful summary judgment motion, the firm moved for an award of sanctions and attorneys’ fees against both the plaintiff and his former attorney on the grounds that they had pursued legally frivolous claims and had unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings. The District Court granted the motion and ordered the plaintiff and his former attorney to pay a combined total of $80,000 in fees and sanctions.  

On April 13, 2010, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the award of fees and sanctions, finding that the District Court had not abused its discretion in ordering Tillman to pay these attorneys’ fees or in sanctioning his former attorney for having pursued an “objectively unreasonable course” by proceeding with the litigation in the face of evidence proving it to be meritless.

Pryor Cashman Litigation Partner Tom Ferber represented New Line and Time Warner in the action.

To read a copy of the Seventh Circuit opinion, please click here.  To read the April 14, 2010 article about the case from the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, please click here.