Sherman v. Graves: Attorney Ordered to Pay $62,959 Over Suit Court Called “Patently Frivolous”

In Joseph Sherman v. Thalia Graves and Gloria Allred, No. 1:24-cv-08494 (AT) (VF) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo has ordered Sherman’s attorney, Darnell D. Crosland, to personally pay Graves and Allred $62,959.50 in attorney’s fees — the closing chapter of a lawsuit a different judge had already thrown out in full, finding it asserted “patently frivolous” claims. (ECF No. 61.)

Background

On September 24, 2024, Thalia Graves, represented by Gloria Allred and the firm then known as Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, sued Sean Combs and Joseph Sherman in this District, alleging that in 2001 Sherman and Combs raped her, recorded the assault on video, and disseminated the video. Graves v. Combs, No. 1:24-cv-07201 (S.D.N.Y.), remains pending. (ECF No. 43 at 1–2.)

Less than two months later, on November 7, 2024, Sherman sued back — in a separate action, naming Graves, Allred, Allred’s firm, and three of Graves’s individual attorneys as defendants. He voluntarily dismissed his claims against the firm and the individual attorneys without prejudice on November 22, 2024; his operative Amended Complaint, filed December 6, 2024, named only Graves and Allred. It alleged that Defendants “sued and went on a media tour touting, claiming, publishing, stating and telling the whole world (without any proof),” that Sherman “viciously raped” Graves in 2001 “while he was working for Sean Combs,” and brought seven claims: defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, vexatious litigation, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. (Am. Compl. at 1, ECF No. 12.)

The defamation claim centered in part on a private message: Sherman alleged that on November 29, 2023, Graves messaged him on Instagram, writing, “If you will be my witness against [Combs], then my attorneys will leave you out of any proceedings . . . [and] I will make sure that the state does not pick up charges or rape charges against you.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 25, ECF No. 12.)

Dismissed as “Patently Frivolous”

On June 2, 2025, Judge Analisa Torres granted Graves and Allred’s motion to dismiss the complaint in full, and granted in part their motion to sanction Crosland. (ECF No. 43.) On defamation, the order held that Graves’s statements in her own complaint — the core of what Sherman sued over — are “absolutely privileged” under New York law, since statements made in litigation are protected if they are, under any view, “pertinent” to it, and Graves’s own sexual-assault allegations plainly were pertinent to her own case. (Id. at 5–6.) The Instagram-message theory failed on a separate ground: a private message to Sherman himself was never “published to a third party,” a required element of defamation. (Id. at 6.)

The rest fell in sequence. Negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress failed because Sherman identified no duty Graves or Allred owed him personally — not just “some amorphous, free-floating duty to society.” (Id. at 7.) Intentional infliction of emotional distress failed because “[c]ommencement of litigation, even if alleged to be for the purpose of harassment and intimidation, is insufficient to support such a claim.” (Id. at 8.) Vexatious litigation failed because, as Sherman’s own counsel conceded, “no such claim exists under New York law.” (Id. at 9.) Abuse of process failed because filing a lawsuit “is not legally considered process capable of being abused.” (Id.) And malicious prosecution failed because Graves v. Combs was — and is — still pending, so the case against Sherman could not have “terminated in his favor.” (Id. at 10.)

On sanctions, Judge Torres placed responsibility on counsel, not the client: “responsibility for the violation of Rule 11(b)(2) is more properly placed solely on [Sherman’s] attorney[].” (Id. at 12 n.2.) She found the complaint asserted “at least five patently frivolous claims” that were “unambiguously foreclose[d] by existing case[ ]law,” and that Crosland had pressed forward after ignoring a pre-motion warning letter Graves’s counsel served on November 13, 2024 laying out exactly why each claim would fail. (Id. at 11.) She ordered Graves and Allred to submit proof of their costs and fees, and denied Sherman’s request for leave to amend. (Id. at 12–13.) A later motion for reconsideration was denied on January 12, 2026. (ECF No. 50.)

The Fee Award

Graves and Allred sought $92,580, covering 137.1 hours of work by two partners at Wang Hecker LLP — Mariann Wang, billed at $950 an hour, and Heather Gregorio, billed at $600 — plus a paralegal billed at $200. (ECF No. 61 at 1, 4.) Magistrate Judge Figueredo cut both partner rates, to $700 and $500, and the paralegal rate to $100, finding the case “not complex” and the requested rates above what this District typically approves for a routine motion that never reached discovery. (Id. at 4–6.) She also cut the hours by 15% after finding both partners had billed for tasks “that should have been delegated to more junior attorneys or paralegals” — filing notices of appearance, cite-checking, and proofreading among them. (Id. at 7–8.) The result: $62,959.50, against the $92,580 requested — run personally against Crosland, tracking Judge Torres’s sanctions ruling. (Id. at 1, 11–12.)

The Other Side

Crosland opposed the fee motion on several grounds, all rejected. He argued Rule 11’s deterrent purpose was already served by the dismissal ruling itself, and that “the mere potential of a sanction has made counsel reconsider filing anything in federal court, for any reason, whatsoever” — an argument the court found undercut by his having kept litigating for months after being warned the claims were frivolous. (Id. at 9–10.) He argued he could not afford to pay, but submitted no financial documentation to support it. (Id. at 9.) And he argued the 137.1 billed hours were excessive for a “routine, pleadings-stage motion to dismiss” — an argument the court found undercut by his own conduct, including ignoring opposing counsel’s letters and missing a joint discovery-plan deadline that forced Graves and Allred to prepare one unilaterally. (Id. at 11.)

What's Next

The Clerk of Court was directed to close the fee motion at ECF No. 53; nothing else is presently pending in this case. (Id. at 12.) The suit that started it, Graves v. Combs, No. 1:24-cv-07201, remains active before the same judge, Analisa Torres, who decided the motion to dismiss here.

Counsel and Sources

Joseph Sherman is represented by Darnell D. Crosland, Esq. Thalia Graves and Gloria Allred are represented by Mariann Wang and Heather Gregorio of Wang Hecker LLP (named Cuti Hecker Wang LLP at the outset of this case). Source: ECF Nos. 12, 43 and 61 on the Sherman v. Graves docket.

Diddy Docket reports on public court records. Parties are presumed innocent or not liable unless proven otherwise. This is not legal advice.