We are pleased to share a recent appellate success on behalf of a national logistics client in a commercial freight dispute before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Our client, a freight brokerage company, had entered into a Broker-Carrier Agreement with a New Jersey-based carrier. The agreement contained a forum selection clause requiring any disputes to be litigated exclusively in Ohio. When the carrier filed a small claims action in New Jersey, our client promptly moved to dismiss based on the contractual forum selection clause. The trial court denied the motion — without any analysis or explanation — finding that our client had waived its forum rights based on the parties’ prior course of dealing. Judgment was entered against our client on unsworn testimony.

We were retained to handle the appeal, arguing that the trial court failed to properly analyze the enforceability of the forum selection clause under New Jersey law and failed to apply the required multi-factor waiver analysis mandated by controlling precedent.

The Appellate Division agreed. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter, holding that the trial court was required to set forth specific factual findings and legal conclusions under Rule 1:7-4, conduct a proper enforceability analysis, and — if the case proceeds in New Jersey — conduct a new trial on sworn testimony.

This result reflects our commitment to protecting our clients’ contractual rights, including hard-won forum selection provisions that provide predictability and efficiency in commercial relationships.

For more information about our commercial litigation practice, please contact our office.

We are pleased to announce another successful outcome on behalf of a prominent music distribution and publishing platform client, this time before the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Following prior unsuccessful actions brought against our client in multiple courts, the plaintiff commenced yet another lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages and the removal of his music from all digital platforms and stores. The plaintiff simultaneously moved for a default judgment against our client.

We successfully opposed the motion and sought dismissal of the action in its entirety on multiple grounds. First, we demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory requirements for obtaining a default judgment, including failing to provide admissible proof of service, proof of the facts underlying his claims, and a sum certain as required by law. Second, we argued that the complaint consisted entirely of vague and conclusory allegations insufficient to provide proper notice of any cognizable claims. Third, and perhaps most significantly, we established that the plaintiff’s own admissions revealed that his claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, having already been litigated and decided in prior proceedings. Finally, we argued that by filing in a new county after repeated losses elsewhere, the plaintiff had engaged in improper forum shopping.

The court agreed on all grounds, denying the default judgment motion and dismissing the complaint in its entirety without costs.

This result underscores our commitment to efficiently protecting our clients from repetitive and meritless litigation across all forums.

For more information about our commercial litigation practice, please contact our office.

We are pleased to announce a significant victory in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Kublanovsky Law successfully obtained summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a music distribution platform client in a federal copyright infringement action.

A plaintiff alleged that our client, along with several other defendants, unlawfully distributed his song recordings without his consent in violation of the Copyright Act of 1976. The plaintiff sought statutory damages and injunctive relief compelling the removal of his recordings from all digital platforms.

Our team moved for summary judgment, submitting detailed attorney declarations documenting exhaustive searches of the U.S. Copyright Office’s public catalog under every plausible variation of the plaintiff’s name, artistic alias, and purported song titles. Those searches returned no valid copyright registrations. Our investigation further revealed that the plaintiff had registered his recordings with a private third-party website of dubious legitimacy, mistakenly believing it to be affiliated with the U.S. Copyright Office. We demonstrated that such registration carries no legal force under the Copyright Act.

The Magistrate Judge issued a thorough Report and Recommendation granting summary judgment in our client’s favor, which the District Court adopted in full after conducting an independent de novo review. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff’s failure to register his works with the U.S. Copyright Office was a fatal, incurable defect. Leave to replead was denied.

This result highlights our firm’s ability to achieve decisive, efficient outcomes in complex federal intellectual property litigation.

For more information about our intellectual property litigation practice, please contact our office.