Photo of Charles Michael

Charles Michael

Subscribe to Charles Michael's Posts

Charles Michael is an accomplished commercial litigator who resolutely defends clients in high stakes disputes and arbitrations. He is also experienced in regulatory and criminal investigations, and represents clients under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Contact:Read more about Charles Michael

In a decision Monday, Judge McMahon granted summary judgment in favor of the author of the Crave series of “romantasy” fiction in a suit accusing the author of allegedly lifting major aspects of the books from the plaintiff, an unpublished author who shared the same agent (see our prior coverage here).

Judge McMachon noted that, between the Crave series and in the plaintiff’s unpublished manuscripts (titled “Blue Moon Rising” and “Masqued” and referred to in the opinion as “BMR/Masqued”), she had read over 6,000 pages of “romantasy” fiction in an eight week period. The resulting opinion—157 pages—explains that the two series of novels are not “substantially similar” within the meaning of copyright law. Copyright “protection extends only to a work’s particular expression of ideas, not to the ideas themselves,” which is why, Judge McMahon explained, the “common trope of ‘boy meets girl from opposing factions/boy and girl fall in love/boy and girl end up dead’” is not protected, but specific expressions of that trope (Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story) are protected.

For the case at hand, Judge McMahon explained that many of the overlapping plot elements were nothing more than staples of “romantasy” genre, including ones common to the “granddaddy” of the genre, the Twilight series:Continue Reading After Reading 6,000 Pages of “Romantasy” Fiction, Judge McMahon Dismisses Suit Over Allegedly Copycat Book Series

In an opinion today, Judge Engelmayer dismissed all claims brought by retired Jets defensive end Mark Gastineau against the makers of the “30 for 30” documentary about the Jets 1980 defensive line, colloquially known as the “New York Sack Exchange.” Gastineau’s main grievance was that the documentary misleadingly portrayed a tense interaction with Brett Favre, who Gastineau accuses of taking a “dive” in 2001 so that Giants defensive end Michael Strahan could eclipse Gastineau’s single-season sack record.  According to Gastineau, the incident was deceptively edited to omit context showing that, in fact, he harbored no animosity towards Favre.Continue Reading Judge Engelmayer: Former “New York Sack Exchange” Defensive End Cannot Sue Over Allegedly Misleading ESPN Documentary

In an opinion filed January 23, Judge Daniels denied a motion (covered here) in which DoorDash and Uber sought to preliminarily enjoin, as improperly “compelled speech,” a new New York City law requiring that online food ordering services provide an option to tip before the order is placed and to include an option for a tip of at least 10%.

DoorDash and Uber used to customarily include a tip option before the order was placed, but, in December 2023, the City passed a “Minimum Pay Law” for delivery workers, and so they moved the tip prompt to a screen that would appear after checkout—and which resulted in a significant decline in tips. The new law was passed in response to the tip decline.

Judge Daniels concluded that the DoorDash and Uber were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the speech at issue was commercial speech—speech that is “linked inextricably” to a commercial transaction—and so subject to less First Amendment protection. Judge Daniels rejected the plaintiffs’ effort to characterize the law as forcing them to “convey the City’s preferred message regarding tipping,” and found that the speech at issue merely reflected their “economic interests” in a commercial transaction:Continue Reading Judge Daniels Refuses To Preliminarily Enjoin City Law Requiring Online Food Orders To Include An Upfront Tipping Option

Earlier this month, DoorDash and Uber Eats filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin New York City’s new law requiring that online food ordering services provide an option to tip before the order is placed and to include an option for a tip of at least 10%.  According to the plaintiffs, the law compels speech that they do not wish to communicate, in violation of the First Amendment:Continue Reading DoorDash and Uber Eats Seeks To Enjoin City Law Requiring Upfront Tipping Option

In an opinion Monday, Judge Abrams granted, in part, a motion by one insurance brokerage, Marsh & McLennan (referred to as MMA), to preliminarily enjoin a rival, Alliant, and certain employees that had left to join Alliant, from poaching clients, in violation of certain contractual non-solicitation obligations.

Judge Abrams enjoined further poaching but would not go so far as to enjoin Alliant from servicing clients that had already left because there was no “indication that MMA’s lost clients would return” if an injunction issued and because, even if MMA were to ultimately prove the client defections resulted from contractual breaches or tortious behavior, the appropriate remedy would be damages (even potentially punitive damages), not a preliminary injunction:Continue Reading In Corporate Raiding Case, Judge Abrams Enjoins Poaching Clients But Not Servicing Ones That Have Already Left

In an Order last week, Judge McMahon asked the lawyers in a copyright infringement case over the young adult book series Crave (see the operative complaint here) how they planned to conduct a forthcoming jury trial, given the massive volume of evidence—both the book series itself and, separately, the plaintiff’s unpublished manuscripts from which the series was allegedly stolen.

The case was filed by family law attorney and aspiring novelist Lynn Freeman who for years sought to publish her book Blue Moon Rising. After having failed to find a publisher, she came across a book, Crave by Tracy Wolff, with striking similarities. Wolff, it turned out, had the same literary agent as Freeman. Freeman would later sue for copyright infringement. (For more case background, see the New Yorker’s feature on the case).

Judge Stanton denied summary judgment, agreeing with Magistrate Judge Netburn’s report and recommendation that there were fact issues about whether Wolff had access to Freeman’s manuscripts (via their common agent) and whether Wolff “copied parts, large or small.”

The case was assigned to Judge McMahon, who initially suggested that the parties agree to a bench trial because, among other things, it would make it easier to manage the volume of evidence: “I promise I will read everything that either side wants to submit to a trier of fact — all the books, all the notes and all the drafts.”

The parties’ decision to proceed with a jury trial is what gave rise to last week’s Order, and Judge McMahon’s query on how to present the evidence. As Judge McMahon explained, it would not suffice for the manuscripts by Freeman or the Crave series itself to be admitted into evidence merely by way of summaries:Continue Reading In Case Over Allegedly Infringing Teen Romance Book Series, Judge McMahon Asks Counsel: How To Efficiently Try A Case With 10,000-Plus Pages Of Allegedly Infringing Material?

In an opinion Friday, Judge Cronan quashed subpoenas issued by the country of Türkiye to various U.S. banks for information relating to Cevdet Turkyolu, a U.S. resident and member of the faith-based Gülen movement that has fallen into disfavor with the Turkish government. The subpoenas were issued under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which authorizes U.S. courts to issue discovery in aid of foreign proceedings.

Türkiye claimed the information was relevant to criminal cases in Türkiye against Turkyolu, but Judge Cronin found insufficient evidence that the criminal cases would actually go forward or that the requested evidence could be used. In addition, as a matter of discretion, Judge Cronan found that the suspicious circumstances of the subpoenas “weigh[ed] heavily” against enforcement of the subpoenas. In essence, there was reason to think the subpoenas were issued as political retaliation:Continue Reading Judge Cronan Quashes “Troubling” Turkish Government Subpoenas Seemingly Intended As Political Retaliation

In an opinion Monday, Judge McMahon imposed over $900 million in damages and statutory penalties under the False Claims Act on long-term care pharmacy services provider Omnicare after a jury verdict finding that Omnicare submitted claims to the government for medications that lacked valid prescriptions.

The actual damages to the government were approximately $136 million, but that amount was then statutorily trebled and coupled with statutory penalties. Omnicare argued that the Constitution limited the government to a one-to-one ratio of actual damages to penalties. It relied on State Farm Mut. Automobile Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), which found a jury award of $145 million in punitive damages on top of $1 million in actual damages violated due process and which suggested that in some cases a one-to-one ratio might be the maximum allowable.

But Judge McMahon disagreed, finding that the case was governed by the Constitution’s “excessive fines” clause, not the due process clause implicated in State Farm:Continue Reading Judge McMahon Concludes That $900 Million In False Claims Act Damages and Penalties Is Not Constitutionally Excessive Because Amount Was “Serious” But Not “Surreal”

Last week, a group of professional tennis players and the Professional Tennis Players Association (a group co-founded by Novak Djokovic) filed a 163-page complaint against the International Tennis Federation (which regulates professional tennis tournaments, including the four “Grand Slams”), the ATP Tour (which regulates men’s professional tennis tours), the WTA Tour (which regulates women’s professional…

In an Order yesterday, Judge Torres took issue with the “relentless” filings of counsel for Sean Carter (known professionally as Jay-Z) in a case accusing Mr. Carter and Sean Combs of abusing the plaintiff, a minor at the time of the alleged incident.

Mr. Carter was added to the case in an amendment on December 9, and his lawyer filed letters on December 9, December 10, and December 13, followed by an emergency motion on December 18, all of which argued that the case was meritless and attacked counsel for the plaintiff (who, for his part, responded with a letter on December 20).

Judge Torres was not amused by the “litany” of filings by Mr. Carter’s counsel and suggested that they were a disservice to Mr. Carter:Continue Reading Judge Torres Refuses to “Fast-Track” Abuse Case In Response to “Relentless” Filings from Jay-Z’s Counsel