Jump to content

Flycatcher Corp Ltd v Ozmos Company LLC

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. and Flycatcher Toys, Inc. v. Ozmos Company LLC et al.[1]
Court U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York[1]
Docket 1:24-cv-09429 (KPF)[1]
Filed Original complaint filing date not identified in the sources reviewed.[1]
Judge(s) Katherine Polk Failla[1]
Plaintiffs Flycatcher Corp. Ltd.; Flycatcher Toys, Inc.[1]
Defendants October 9 caption: Ozmos Company LLC; Eytan Grossman d/b/a EYG Deals; Creative Rewards Inc.; Joshua Chavez d/b/a Onestopfastshop; Valley Bodega Wholesale Inc.; Sam Shamloo; Adam Hamida; John Does 1–25. The sanctions concern counsel for now-defaulted Affable Avenue LLC.[1]
Case type Civil litigation; generative-AI citation misconduct, sanctions and attorneys’ fees[1]
Claims / issues Rule 11, inherent judicial powers and 28 U.S.C. § 1927; compensation for investigating false citations and preparing the fee application. Underlying merits claims not established from the reviewed fee order.[1]
Status October 9, 2026: attorney Steven A. Feldman ordered to pay $38,877.59 to Joel G. MacMull and Mandelbaum Barrett PC within 30 days, unless a different schedule is agreed.[1]

Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. v. Ozmos Company LLC is a Southern District of New York action involving sanctions for attorney Steven A. Feldman’s false generative-AI citations. On October 9, 2026, Judge Katherine Polk Failla awarded $38,877.59 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Joel G. MacMull and Mandelbaum Barrett PC.[1]

Prior sanctions and fee application

The October 9 opinion recounts the court’s February 5, 2026 sanctions decision: Feldman, counsel for Affable Avenue LLC, repeatedly submitted false AI-generated citations and misrepresented their origin. The court found bad faith, imposed a default judgment against Affable, and authorized a fee application for MacMull’s work investigating and reporting the misconduct under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The opinion also describes the court’s reliance on inherent judicial powers for the prior sanctions.[1]

MacMull filed the fee petition on March 6, Feldman opposed it on April 20 after an extension, and MacMull replied April 27. The October 9 order decides the fee amount following that earlier sanctions determination.[1]

October 9, 2026 fee award

The court applied the lodestar approach and found the requested $575 hourly rates and attorney work generally reasonable. The work covered investigation of the citation misconduct and preparation of the fee application and reply. It reduced the $42,090 attorneys’ fees component by 10%, citing potential efficiency improvements and Feldman’s asserted financial limitations. This yielded $37,881 in fees, plus the full $996.59 in legal-research costs, totaling $38,877.59.[1]

Payment must be made within 30 days of the October 9 opinion unless Feldman and MacMull agree to another schedule. Footnote 2 explains that the award goes to MacMull and his firm after their withdrawal as counsel to Top Experience Company LLC; the court expects reimbursement to Top to the extent it previously paid the covered fees. The opinion notes that Top had separately been defaulted on September 28, 2026.[1]

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 S.D. New York, Flycatcher Corp. Ltd. and Flycatcher Toys, Inc. v. Ozmos Company LLC et al., No. 1:24-cv-09429 (KPF), October 9, 2026, opinion and order. Complete accessible original body, including footnotes and signed conclusion, independently reviewed October 11, 2026.
Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=Flycatcher_Corp_Ltd_v_Ozmos_Company_LLC&oldid=6308"