Harris O. Schoenberg v. Shapolsky Publishers, Incorporated, Ian Shapolsky and Steimatzky Publishing of North America, Inc., Samuel A. Abady, Esq.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that imposition of coercive sanctions could not be upheld where attorney could not comply with the court’s discovery order because he was no longer counsel to the Publishers
• finding a facial allegation of infringement was insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction, instead, district courts were required to must go behind the face of the complaint and use a three-part test to determine the true “essence” of the complaint
• motion for Rule 11 sanctions not sufficient to put party on notice that order of contempt was being considered under Rule 37
• motion for Rule 11 sanctions not sufficient to put party on notice that order of contempt was being considered under Rule 37
• \The question of whether the breach of a contract licensing or assigning a copyright gives rise to a federal cause of action under the Copyright Act is a complex issue in a 'murky' area.\
• “The question of whether the breach of a contract licensing or assigning a copyright gives rise to a federal cause of action under the Copyright Act is a complex issue in a ‘murky’ area.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).