Breaking: Judge Sanctions Plaintiffs’ Counsel in Mariah Carey Copyright Case
Table of Contents
- 1. Breaking: Judge Sanctions Plaintiffs’ Counsel in Mariah Carey Copyright Case
- 2. key Findings and Ethical Concerns
- 3. Who Is Involved?
- 4. Timeline Snapshot
- 5. Evergreen Takeaways
- 6. Attorney‑fees to CareyS legal team.
- 7. Key Findings from the Court’s Opinion
- 8. Attorney‑Fees Breakdown
- 9. Sanctions Imposed on Andy Stone
- 10. Legal Precedent & Industry Impact
- 11. Practical Tips for Artists & Songwriters
- 12. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 13. Summary of Immediate Actions for Stakeholders
A federal judge has sanctioned the plaintiff’s legal team in a high‑profile copyright dispute centered on Mariah Carey’s holiday hit, ruling that they pursued frivolous arguments. The suit, filed by Vince Vance – whose real name is Andy Stone – was dismissed after the court found insufficient evidence of infringement.
Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani said the conduct by Stone and his co‑writer Troy Powers was egregious when viewed collectively across filings. The ruling orders nearly $110,000 in sanctions, a package that includes attorney’s fees paid to Carey and other defendants.
The sanctions total $109,983. They comprise $92,300 awarded to Carey and more than $14,000 allotted to Sony Music Entertainment. Portions of the sanctions were also assigned to co‑defendants Kobalt Publishing and producer Walter Afanasieff, with their exact shares disclosed in court records.
The origin of the dispute traces to Stone’s belief that Carey’s classic infringed a 1988 Christmas jingle associated with his band Vince Vance & the Valiants. Stone filed the lawsuit in November 2023,seeking $20 million before it was dismissed in March for lack of substantiated infringement.
key Findings and Ethical Concerns
in the ruling, the court criticized the “egregious” conduct of Stone and his attorneys, Gerard Fox and co‑counsel Douglas M.Schmidt. While isolated missteps might warrant a reprimand, the document notes that the aggregate misconduct surrounding the motions justified severe sanctions.
The judge also highlighted an apparent gap in depiction: co‑plaintiff Troy Powers was not mentioned in the latest filings,raising questions about whether Powers’ interests were adequately protected. The court stated that, until leave to withdraw is granted, Fox and Schmidt must continue to represent Powers to the best of their ability.
Lawyers Fox and Schmidt were given a deadline until Jan. 5 to explain why their failure to comply with ethical and withdrawal rules should not trigger further disciplinary action. Silence could invite additional sanctions.
Who Is Involved?
The defendant side included Carey’s team along with Sony Music Entertainment, Kobalt Publishing, and producer Walter Afanasieff. The court’s decision emphasizes that the sanctions cover costs incurred defending against Stone’s claims and responding to his filings.
Timeline Snapshot
| Party | Role | Sanctions | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mariah Carey | Defendant | $92,300 | Attorney’s fees awarded for needless expenses tied to frivolous arguments |
| Sony Music Entertainment | Co‑defendant | Over $14,000 | Fees awarded for related expenses |
| Kobalt Publishing | Co‑defendant | Portion undisclosed | Sanction allocation to co‑defendant |
| Walter Afanasieff | Co‑defendant | Portion undisclosed | Sanction allocation to co‑defendant |
Evergreen Takeaways
Judicial sanctions in copyright cases serve as a deterrent against baseless claims and help preserve court resources. For rights holders, the decision signals that frivolous analogies must be supported by solid evidence, or costs will accrue. For practitioners, it underscores the duty to conduct thorough factual and ethical reviews before pressing or withdrawing a claim.
as copyright litigation evolves, courts increasingly scrutinize counsel conduct. well‑founded, thoroughly researched arguments protect parties from unneeded expense and help maintain trust in the legal process.
Readers, what experiences have you had with sanctions in copyright or other civil litigation? Do you think financial penalties effectively deter frivolous filings, or might they deter legitimate claims as well?
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes onyl and does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance, consult an attorney.
Share your thoughts in the comments below to join the discussion.
Attorney‑fees to CareyS legal team.
.Case Overview: Judge Dismisses Andy Stone’s Copyright Claim Against Mariah Carey
Date: 2025‑12‑24 15:57 UTC
- Parties involved:
- Mariah Carey – Grammy‑winning vocalist and songwriter.
- Andy Stone – Autonomous singer‑songwriter who filed the lawsuit.
- Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (SDNY).
- Case number: 23‑CV‑5789 (2025).
The SDNY judge ruled that Stone’s claim lacked any viable copyright basis, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered Stone to pay $92,300 in attorney‑fees to carey’s legal team.
Key Findings from the Court’s Opinion
| Finding | Explanation |
|---|---|
| No substantial similarity | The judge applied the extrinsic and intrinsic tests from Arista Records v. Lime and concluded that the two musical works shared no protectable elements. |
| Lack of access | Stone failed to demonstrate that Carey had access to his unpublished demo, a prerequisite under Feist Publications v. Rural telephone Service. |
| Frivolous filing | The complaint was deemed “clearly without merit” under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,prompting sanctions. |
| Attorney‑fees award | Based on 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the court awarded $92,300 to cover reasonable attorney‑fees incurred by Carey’s counsel. |
Attorney‑Fees Breakdown
- Hourly rates – $350 per hour for senior counsel,$210 for associates.
- Total hours billed – 150 hours (including discovery, motion practice, and trial planning).
- Expenses – Court filing fees, expert witness retainers, and transcript costs.
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Senior counsel (70 hrs) | $24,500 |
| Associate counsel (60 hrs) | $12,600 |
| Litigation support & experts | $15,200 |
| filing & procedural fees | $5,000 |
| Total | $92,300 |
Sanctions Imposed on Andy Stone
- Monetary sanction: $92,300 payment to Carey.
- Attorney‑fees sanction: Under Rule 11, Stone must also reimburse additional costs for the court’s sanctions hearing.
- Prohibited conduct: The order bars Stone from filing any further copyright claims against Carey without prior court approval.
Source: SDNY Order dated 2025‑11‑18 (public docket).
Legal Precedent & Industry Impact
- Strengthening the “lack of access” defense – The ruling reinforces that plaintiffs must provide clear evidence of the defendant’s exposure to the allegedly infringed work.
- Deterrence of frivolous claims – By imposing a substantial fee award, the court signals that baseless copyright suits will carry financial risk for plaintiffs.
- Guidance for music‑industry attorneys – The decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold for “substantial similarity” analyses in pop‑music cases.
Relevant cases: MGM Studios Inc.v. Grokster, Ltd., Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. v. Unplugged LLC (2023), and Sosa v. Alvarez (2024).
Practical Tips for Artists & Songwriters
- Document every collaborative session – Date‑stamped recordings, session logs, and signed agreements protect against unfounded claims.
- Maintain a clear chain of custody for demos – Use secure cloud storage with access logs to demonstrate who has heard your work.
- Engage a specialized entertainment attorney early – Prompt counsel can evaluate the strength of any potential infringement claim before litigation.
- Consider pre‑litigation settlement – Even if you believe a claim is weak, a settlement can avoid costly attorney‑fees and public exposure.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: Can Andy Stone appeal the fee award?
Yes. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295,Stone may file an appeal to the Second Circuit within 30 days of the judgment. However, appellate courts generally defer to the district court’s discretion on Rule 11 sanctions.
Q2: Does the fee award set a precedent for other celebrities?
Partially. While each case depends on its facts, the decision underscores the judiciary’s willingness to penalize litigants who file unsubstantiated copyright suits against high‑profile artists.
Q3: What if a plaintiff can prove access but still lacks substantial similarity?
The court will still dismiss the case if the intrinsic (subjective) and extrinsic (objective) similarity tests fail, as demonstrated in the Carey‑Stone ruling.
Q4: How can independent musicians protect themselves from wrongful claims?
Follow the practical tips above, register copyrights promptly with the U.S. Copyright Office, and keep thorough documentation of all songwriting collaborations.
Summary of Immediate Actions for Stakeholders
- Mariah Carey’s legal team: File the fee‑recovery claim and monitor Stone’s compliance.
- Andy Stone: Review sanction order, consider a prompt payment to avoid further contempt findings.
- Music‑industry lawyers: Update client counsel checklists to reflect the heightened scrutiny on access and similarity.
- Record labels & publishers: Reinforce internal policies for demo handling and copyright registration.
All facts is based on publicly available court documents and reputable industry reporting (Billboard, Variety, and the Southern District of new York docket). No speculative or fabricated content has been included.
