Shamar Toms-Anthony

Shamar’s practice focuses on complex commercial disputes in a variety of contexts, including entertainment, media, business, and intellectual property litigation.

He has significant litigation experience in state and federal courts around the country and in private arbitration proceedings. Matter highlights include representing:

• A Florida businessman in a jury trial that culminated in a $26.2 million verdict in favor of his client in a case involving claims of legal malpractice, fraud, and elder abuse.
• Over 80 singers, songwriters, music publishers, and distributors against claims that the rhythms in their reggaeton songs infringe the plaintiffs’ purported copyrighted works.
• Two independent film producers in a copyright infringement action, which culminated in a jury trial in the Central District of California.
• A hip-hop entrepreneur, writer, and record executive in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, which affirmed an anti-SLAPP ruling in his favor.
• A prolific R&B singer in a copyright infringement action concerning the lyrics of his Billboard-charting song.
• A film distributor in securing dismissal from an AAA arbitration based on their status as non-signatories to the arbitration provision.
• An Argentine rapper and singer in a breach of contract action brought by purported former manager.
• The former Manager and CEO of a science and technology company in an indemnity action in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Copyright

Shamar is a sought-after litigator for cases concerning issues of copyright infringement. Through his litigation experience, Shamar has dealt with complex copyright matters involving novel issues regarding the Ninth Circuit’s “server test,” and whether certain lyrics and rhythms are protectable as a matter of law.

Anti-SLAPP

Shamar has extensive experience litigating complex issues concerning California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute, including whether allegations are part of a “mixed cause of action,” or simply incidental to and further evidence of the harms alleged.