Case ID: f-appx_506/html/0043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WD MUSIC PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Anthony MULLER and DDDDC, Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
    Nos. 12-0362-cv (Lead) 12-519-cv (XAP).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 20, 2012.
    
      Randall S.D. Jacobs, PLLC, New York, NY., for Appellant.
    Michael A. Freeman, Greenberg Freeman LLP, New York, NY., for Appellees.
    Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges., and RICHARD W. GOLDBERG, Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order be AFFIRMED.

WD Music Products, Inc. appeals from a December 29, 2011 judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, C.J.) following the court’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint under the doctrine of res judicata. WD Music Prods., Inc. v. Muller, No. 11 CV 1588, 2011 WL 6888272 (E.D.N.Y. Dec.29, 2011). Defendants Anthony Muller and DDDDC, Inc. cross-appeal from the court’s accompanying denial of their motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

We affirm the dismissal of WD Music’s complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. In sum, WD Music’s second state-court action was brought to a final conclusion by the New York State Supreme Court’s dismissal on res judicata grounds. “This decision of the New York State Supreme Court itself creates a preclusive effect.” See Hameed v. Aldana, 296 Fed. Appx. 154, 155 (2d Cir. 2008). New York law provides that “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy.” See id. (quoting O’Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357, 445 N.Y.S.2d 687, 429 N.E.2d 1158 (1981) (internal quotations omitted)). If WD Music believed that either of the state court’s decisions was incorrect, its remedy was to appeal.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for sanctions. See Perez v. Posse Comitatus, 373 F.3d 321, 325 (2d Cir.2004) (“Even if the district court concludes that the assertion of a given claim violates Rule 11, ... the decision whether or not to impose sanctions is a matter for the court’s discretion.”); In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc., 218 F.3d 109, 115 (2d Cir.2000) (“Sanctions [under 28 U.S.C. § 1927] may be imposed ... only when there is a finding of conduct constituting or akin to bad faith.”) (internal quotations omitted).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.