‘Unlucky’s Luck Runs Out’: Federal Judge Slaps Default Judgment in Documentary Feud After Plaintiff’s 6th Lawyer Quits
In a stinging rebuke to persistent legal foot-dragging, a federal judge in Michigan has dismissed Unlucky Films Inc.’s lawsuit against Red Hawk Films Inc., entering a default judgment after the plaintiff’s sixth attorney abruptly withdrew amid unpaid fees. This default judgment in the documentary dispute underscores the perils of attorney withdrawal and corporate plaintiffs failing to secure steady representation, potentially handing defendants a clean win in breach of contract battles.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 2:24-cv-10149), centers on Unlucky Films’ claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and a request for declaratory relief against Red Hawk. At its heart lies a soured partnership over an independent documentary project, where Unlucky—led by owner Timothy Mucciante—alleged Red Hawk shirked obligations tied to production deals and revenue shares. Red Hawk fired back with counterclaims, escalating the fray into a protracted standoff that dragged on for 22 months.
What began as a routine entertainment dispute devolved into chaos as Unlucky cycled through six law firms. Initial counsel from Howard & Howard gave way to Augustine O. Igwe P.C., which cited nonpayment and relational breakdowns in April 2024. Subsequent firms—Rossman P.C., Traverse Legal PLC, Evia Law PLC, and finally solo practitioner Richard M. Shulman—followed suit, each pulling out over similar grievances: unpaid bills despite promises and irreconcilable differences. Judge Susan K. DeClercq, overseeing the matter, repeatedly warned Mucciante of dire consequences, including dismissal, in orders dating back to April 2024 and as recent as July and September 2025.
Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the court ruled Unlucky’s pattern showed willful neglect in prosecuting the case, prejudicing Red Hawk through delays and mounting costs. “As a corporate plaintiff without a lawyer, it is fair to say that Unlucky’s luck has run out,” the order quipped, directing default under Rule 55(a) since corporations can’t self-represent. Citing Sixth Circuit precedents like Schafer v. City of Defiance, the judge weighed factors including bad faith nonpayment, repeated admonishments, and exhausted alternatives before pulling the plug.
Entertainment litigators aren’t shocked. “This is a textbook trap for indie producers: underfunding legal fights invites defaults that torpedo IP claims,” says veteran film attorney from Loeb & Loeb, who notes similar pitfalls in low-budget docs where cash flow trumps counsel retention. Public chatter on legal forums buzzes with sympathy for defendants facing “zombie cases,” while indie filmmakers decry it as a cautionary tale of overreaching without reserves.
For U.S. audiences in the creative economy, this federal court dismissal ripples into Hollywood’s underbelly, where documentary breach of contract suits are commonplace amid streaming slumps. It could deter cash-strapped startups from suing over fiduciary lapses, preserving resources but stifling accountability in a $100B+ industry. Politically neutral, it highlights judicial efficiency pushes, potentially easing dockets but raising bars for pro se-adjacent entities. Lifestyle-wise, avid doc viewers might see fewer exposes if producers fear litigation black holes.
With Unlucky’s main claims axed, Red Hawk’s counterclaims stand poised for adjudication, possibly yielding damages or rights affirmations by early 2026. This saga reinforces that in high-stakes film disputes, steady legal footing—or lack thereof—can seal fates, urging better planning in volatile production pacts.
By Sam Michael
Follow and subscribe to us for instant push notifications on breaking legal and entertainment news—stay ahead!
SEO Tags: default judgment, attorney withdrawal, documentary dispute, breach of contract lawsuit, federal court dismissal, Unlucky Films, Red Hawk Films, film production litigation