Nature Picture Library Limited v. Susan M Steinmann PLLC et al

Filing 22

ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven days of the filing date of this Order, the Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 16 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 11/25/24. (MYE)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Nature Picture Library Limited,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Susan M Steinmann PLLC, et al.,

13

No. CV-24-00393-TUC-CKJ
ORDER

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff filed this action on August 8, 2024. Plaintiff, the Nature Picture Library

16

Limited, specializes in nature photography, and sues Defendants, a real estate business, for

17

alleged copyright infringement in violation of federal copyright laws. (Complaint (Doc. 1)

18

(citing 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)). Plaintiff alleges Defendants used

19

copyright protected work on her website Realtor.com page without permission, copied and

20

distributed the work for the purpose of advertising Defendants’ business, and resized,

21

added additional images to the protected work, and removed copyright management

22

information from the copyright protected work.

23

On October 4, 2024, Defendants filed an Answer. On October 16, 2024, the Plaintiff

24

filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint to add essential facts inadvertently omitted by prior

25

counsel to ensure Plaintiff’s recovery on all damages. Plaintiff also adds a second count

26

for clarification and consistency with allegations related to the removal of copyright

27

management information. Defendants do not object to the amendment.

28

1

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses raised in

2

the Answer. Defendants respond that motions to strike are disfavored as a drastic remedy

3

that is often used as a delaying tactic. The Response reflects that a motion to strike might

4

be granted where an affirmative defense could have no possible bearing on the subject

5

matter of the litigation but otherwise, generally, it is not granted absent a showing of

6

prejudice by the moving party. (Response (Doc. 18) at 2-3 (citations omitted)).

7

As the Plaintiff is filing, without objection from Defendants, an Amended

8

Complaint, Defendants shall be filing an Amended Answer. The Court finds the Motion to

9

Strike is moot.

10

Under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 16(a)(2), “[t]he Judge must issue the scheduling

11

order as soon as practicable, but unless the Judge finds good cause for delay, the Judge

12

must issue it within the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served with the

13

complaint or 60 days after any defendant has appeared.” Therefore, simultaneously, with

14

this Order the Court will issue an order requiring the parties to hold a scheduling conference

15

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and appear at a Rule 16 case management scheduling

16

conference.

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

19
20
21
22
23
24

(Doc. 14) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven days of the filing date of this
Order, the Plaintiff shall file the First Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses
(Doc. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2024.

25
26
27
28

-2-