WD Music Products, Inc. v. Muller , 506 F. App'x 43 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          12-0362-cv (L)
    WD Music v. Muller
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    SUMMARY ORDER
    RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,
    2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.
    WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
    ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON
    ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
    1            At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
    2       for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    3       United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
    4       New York, on the 20th day of December, two thousand twelve.
    5
    6       PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,
    7                PETER W. HALL,
    8                         Circuit Judges.
    9                RICHARD W. GOLDBERG,
    10                         Judge.*
    11
    12
    13
    14       WD MUSIC PRODUCTS, INC.
    15
    16                                     Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
    17
    18                       -v.-                                        Nos. 12-0362-cv (Lead)
    19                                                                         12-519-cv (XAP)
    20       ANTHONY MULLER and DDDDC, INC.,
    21
    22                                     Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
    23
    24
    25
    26       FOR APPELLANT:                Randall S.D. Jacobs, PLLC, New York, NY.
    27
    28       FOR APPELLEES:                Michael A. Freeman, Greenberg Freeman
    29                                     LLP, New York, NY.
    30
    *
    The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, of the United States
    Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    1         Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    2    Eastern District of New York (Amon, C.J.).
    3
    4        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
    5    AND DECREED that the order be AFFIRMED.
    6        WD Music Products, Inc. appeals from a December 29,
    7    2011 judgment entered by the United States District Court
    8    for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, C.J.) following
    9    the court’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss the
    10   complaint under the doctrine of res judicata.   WD Music
    11   Prods., Inc. v. Muller, No. 11 CV 1588, 
    2011 WL 6838272
    12   (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2011).   Defendants Anthony Muller and
    13   DDDDC, Inc. cross-appeal from the court’s accompanying
    14   denial of their motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of
    15   Civil Procedure 11 and 
    28 U.S.C. § 1927
    .   We assume the
    16   parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history
    17   of the case.
    18       We affirm the dismissal of WD Music’s complaint for
    19   substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.
    20   In sum, WD Music’s second state-court action was brought to
    21   a final conclusion by the New York State Supreme Court’s
    22   dismissal on res judicata grounds.   “This decision of the
    23   New York State Supreme Court itself creates a preclusive
    2
    1    effect.”     See Hameed v. Aldana, 
    296 Fed. Appx. 154
    , 155 (2d
    2    Cir. 2008).    New York law provides that “once a claim is
    3    brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out
    4    of the same transaction or series of transactions are
    5    barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking
    6    a different remedy.”     See 
    id.
     (quoting O’Brien v. City of
    7    Syracuse, 
    54 N.Y.2d 353
    , 357 (1981) (internal quotations
    8    omitted)).    If WD Music believed that either of the state
    9    court’s decisions was incorrect, its remedy was to appeal.
    10       The district court did not abuse its discretion in
    11   denying defendants’ motion for sanctions.     See Perez v.
    12   Posse Comitatus, 
    373 F.3d 321
    , 325 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Even if
    13   the district court concludes that the assertion of a given
    14   claim violates Rule 11, . . . the decision whether or not to
    15   impose sanctions is a matter for the court’s discretion.”);
    16   In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc., 
    218 F.3d 109
    , 115 (2d
    17   Cir. 2000) (“Sanctions [under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1927
    ] may be
    18   imposed . . . only when there is a finding of conduct
    19   constituting or akin to bad faith.”) (internal quotations
    20   omitted).
    21
    22
    3
    1       We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and
    2   find them to be without merit.   For the reasons stated
    3   above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    4
    5                              FOR THE COURT:
    6                              Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    7
    8
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-0362-cv (L)

Citation Numbers: 506 F. App'x 43

Judges: Wesley, Hall, Goldberg

Filed Date: 12/20/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024