Not every copyright lawsuit ends with a big payout for the plaintiff. In fact, the opposite can happen. Regardless of how it turns out, it’s never a good idea to tick off the judge.
On its face, Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney looks like a standard copyright infringement complaint that ended with summary judgment and an order awarding attorneys’ fees to the defense. However, that barely scratches the surface of the legal weirdness that involves a sitting judge reading over 6,000 pages of both published books and unsold manuscripts to familiarize herself with the genre in question, the defense requesting over $3.4 million in attorneys’ fees, and Federal Judge Colleen McMahon becoming so irritated with the litigants that one of her orders notes that “I am indeed being jerked around” and that if she “has to rule on more than one frivolous attorney-client privilege objection, there will be consequences.”
The case delivers two lessons: do not test a judge’s patience, and do not assume a copyright suit is a no-risk bet. Her later orders make clear that litigants and lawyers who fail to give a court what it specifically requests can turn an already costly case into an even more expensive sanctions fight.
The other lesson is for prospective copyright plaintiffs. A party who brings an infringement case and loses does not necessarily just walk away empty-handed. Under the Copyright Act, a court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party, particularly where it concludes that the losing claim was objectively unreasonable. When multiple defendants are involved, that exposure can grow quickly because each defendant may retain separate counsel.
Supplying the Demand for Sparkly Vampires
Although they blend romance and fantasy in slightly different ways, both paranormal and romantasy fiction have skyrocketed in popularity over the past few decades. Bestselling authors like Sarah J. Maas, Rebecca Yarros, and Holly Black have enjoyed massive success within the romantasy genre, especially with books targeted at young adults.
In a copyright claims lawsuit filed in March 2022, plaintiff Lynne Freeman alleged that a cadre of defendants, including Emily Sylvan Kim, her agent from 2010 to 2014, and bestselling author of the paranormal “Crave series” Tracy Deebs-Elkenaney (writing as Tracy Wolff), each had a hand in ripping off her unpublished novel “Blue Moon Rising” (along with “Masqued,” another unpublished manuscript). She accused Kim and Wolff, along with Stacy Abrams, an editor and VP of Operations at Entangled Publishing LLC, of using her draft of “Blue Moon Rising” to create the “Crave novels.”
Freeman’s suit cited several examples to support her plagiarism claim. Both her manuscript and the “Crave” series feature a teenage girl moving to Alaska as a protagonist, discovering paranormal powers, and having a romantic relationship with a non-human. Counts included breach of contract, fraud, and copyright infringement. In addition to demanding all profits from “Crave” products and other damages, Freeman sought to prevent Universal City Studios LLC from making a movie based on “Crave,” the first book in the series. She also filed separate suits against bookselling retailers like Amazon, Target, and Barnes & Noble for contributory infringement.
A magistrate judge recommended denying both parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the copyright claim but made no ruling on substantial similarity, suggesting it be settled at trial. A district judge agreed. The case was later reassigned to Judge McMahon in 2025, who decided that the best way to properly apply the Second Circuit’s “more discerning ordinary observer” test to cross-motions regarding whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work would be to read every version of the “Blue Moon Rising” manuscript, all of Freeman’s writing notes, and the entirety of the “Crave” series, which amounted to more than 6,000 pages.
Although they blend romance and fantasy in slightly different ways, both paranormal and romantasy fiction have skyrocketed in popularity over the past few decades. Bestselling authors like Sarah J. Maas, Rebecca Yarros, and Holly Black have enjoyed massive success within the romantasy genre, especially with books targeted at young adults.
In a copyright claims lawsuit filed in March 2022, plaintiff Lynne Freeman alleged that a cadre of defendants, including Emily Sylvan Kim, her agent from 2010 to 2014, and bestselling author of the paranormal “Crave series” Tracy Deebs-Elkenaney (writing as Tracy Wolff), each had a hand in ripping off her unpublished novel “Blue Moon Rising” (along with “Masqued,” another unpublished manuscript). She accused Kim and Wolff, along with Stacy Abrams, an editor and VP of Operations at Entangled Publishing LLC, of using her draft of “Blue Moon Rising” to create the “Crave novels.”
Freeman’s suit cited several examples to support her plagiarism claim. Both her manuscript and the “Crave” series feature a teenage girl moving to Alaska as a protagonist, discovering paranormal powers, and having a romantic relationship with a non-human. Counts included breach of contract, fraud, and copyright infringement. In addition to demanding all profits from “Crave” products and other damages, Freeman sought to prevent Universal City Studios LLC from making a movie based on “Crave,” the first book in the series. She also filed separate suits against bookselling retailers like Amazon, Target, and Barnes & Noble for contributory infringement.
A magistrate judge recommended denying both parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the copyright claim but made no ruling on substantial similarity, suggesting it be settled at trial. A district judge agreed. The case was later reassigned to Judge McMahon in 2025, who decided that the best way to properly apply the Second Circuit’s “more discerning ordinary observer” test to cross-motions regarding whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work would be to read every version of the “Blue Moon Rising” manuscript, all of Freeman’s writing notes, and the entirety of the “Crave” series, which amounted to more than 6,000 pages.
Why Don’t Troubled Teenage Witches Ever End Up in New Hampshire?
After immersing herself in the paranormal/romantasy world, Judge McMahon granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on March 16, 2026. While acknowledging that there were similarities between the works of Freeman and Wolff, they involved unprotectable tropes that were “scènes à faire” and common throughout the genre. These included the protagonist's paranormal abilities and school settings, such as Hermione Granger and Hogwarts from the “Harry Potter” series. It would be objectively unreasonable to consider these unprotectable elements as copyrightable, the judge held. She also gave no credence to snippets Freeman claimed were plagiarized, calling them “common phrases.”
Judge McMahon noted several differences between the two works. Freeman’s lead character was a witch/shapeshifter/demon who attended public school and was romantically involved with ::checks notes:: a Viking shapeshifter, while the protagonist of “Crave” is a gargoyle/witch getting an education in a gothic castle who becomes involved with a vampire prince. The judge ruled that the texts differed markedly in tone and style. In addition to granting summary judgment, Judge McMahon also left a stay in place against Freeman’s suits against book retailers, which ended the whole affair.
Except it didn’t.
‘I Do Not Expect Any Problems’
As might be expected for a suit that lasted four years and included multiple defendants with separate counsel, the attorneys’ fees became quite substantial. Several defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees under FRCP 54 and 17 on April 14, 2026, a day before Freeman filed an appeal. After a series of filings being sealed, unsealed, and partially redacted, Judge McMahon awarded summary judgment to the defendants on July 28 for attorneys’ fees, with the amount to be determined after she received invoices from their counsel that matched the over $3.4 million they claimed to be owed. She also agreed to impose a $150,000 bond on Freeman.
In August, an aggrieved-sounding Judge McMahon admonished the defendants’ attorneys after they submitted summaries of the charges instead of itemized lists detailing hours billed and rates charged. Her ire later shifted to Freeman and her attorneys, who attempted to file certain financial documents under seal. On September 9, she instructed Freeman to be deposed on her ability to pay before McMahon’s law clerk, who had “devoted literally hundreds of hours to this case,” was scheduled to leave her employ. After Freeman and her counsel repeatedly invoked attorney-client privilege during the proceeding, McMahon followed up on September 17 by ordering them to answer ALL questions asked, and to treat any avoided question as an affirmative answer regarding her ability to pay. She closed the order by stating, “I do not expect any problems.”
There were problems.
Judge McMahon’s order, issued on September 21, got right to the point: “My order requires no clarification. It is perfectly clear. Counsel for Ms. Freeman do not get to set the rules.” After promising potential sanctions that included the possible revocation of pro hac vice admission to practice or admission to the Bar of this Court or a civil contempt holding, Judge McMahon suggested that Freeman’s counsel was acting in bad faith and that she “will not stand for being jerked around - and I am indeed being jerked around - in this manner by any lawyer who practices before me.”
For now, the matter remains unsettled. While Freeman has allegedly paid her counsel over $1.1 million in fees, the judge expressed concern she may have been attempting to hide money with her estranged husband during their divorce settlement.
The only certain thing is that both sides might welcome paranormal intervention at this point.
