Muench Photography, Inc. v. Pearson Education, Inc.
Filing
25
ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge William H. Orrick granting 11 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend within 30 days of the date of this Order. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2013) Modified on 11/25/2013 to add deadline to amend (jmdS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MUENCH PHOTOGRAPHY, INC.,
Case No. 13-cv-03937-WHO
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND PEARSON EDUCATION,
INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
9
10
PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.,
Re: Dkt. No. 11
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
INTRODUCTION
13
14
Plaintiff Muench Photography, Inc. (“MPI”), brings this action against defendant Pearson
15
Education, Inc. (“Pearson”), alleging contributory copyright infringement and seeking injunctive
16
relief, monetary damages, attorney‟s fees, and costs. Pearson moves to dismiss the action, arguing
17
that it is barred due to improper claim splitting and that MPI‟s Complaint fails to adequately allege
18
facts to support its claims. Based upon the parties‟ briefs and arguments, and for the reasons
19
below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
BACKGROUND
20
21
22
23
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Court accepts the following factual allegations in MPI‟s Complaint as true for the
purposes of the Motion to Dismiss:
24
MPI owns the copyrights to the 485 photographic images listed in Exhibit 1 of the
25
Complaint (the “Photographs”). Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) ¶ 6. The Photographs were registered with
26
the United States Copyright Office. Id. ¶ 7.
27
Pearson, which publishes educational textbooks, “facilitated the unlicensed use of the
28
Photographs in various educational publications” by “distribut[ing] the Photographs without
1
permission to other entities, subsidiary companies, divisions, affiliates and/or third parties”
2
(“Third Parties”). Id. ¶¶ 3, 8-9. “Pearson permitted Third Parties to distribute Pearson‟s
3
publications containing the Photographs in new territories, to translate its publications into new
4
languages, and to adapt its publications for distribution in additional territories.” Id. ¶ 9.
5
Pearson‟s reproduction and distribution of the Photographs to the Third Parties occurred in the
6
United States. Id.
7
Pearson enabled the international distribution of its publications partly through its United
8
States-based international rights management group (“IRMG”), whose stated mission is “to
9
maximize the number of translations and local versions published that are based upon products of
Pearson.” Id. ¶ 10. The IRMG facilitates “approximately 4,000 third-party licenses annually,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
which includes translations in approximately 50 languages read around the world.” Id.
12
The Third Parties translated Pearson‟s textbooks “into additional languages or published
13
them in local adaptations or reprints. The Third Parties included the Photographs in these
14
publications without [MPI‟s] permission.” Id. ¶ 11. MPI provides three examples of textbooks
15
published by Third Parties that include unauthorized reproductions of MPI‟s photographs. Id.
16
In disseminating the Photographs to the Third Parties, “Pearson enabled, induced, caused,
17
facilitated, or materially contributed to the Third Parties‟ unauthorized reproduction and
18
distribution of the Photographs.” Id. ¶ 12. Pearson “knew when it reproduced and distributed the
19
Photographs that the Third Parties would reproduce and distribute the Photographs without
20
[MPI‟s] authorization”; Pearson also knew that the Third Parties in fact did so. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.
21
Furthermore, “Pearson had the right and ability to control the Third Parties‟ use of the
22
Photographs” and “directly profited from its reproduction and distribution of the Photographs to
23
the Third Parties.” Id. ¶¶ 14, 16.
24
Only Pearson “knows the full extent to which it has caused [MPI‟s] copyrights to be
25
infringed by distributing the Photographs to Third Parties who violated licensed limits or used the
26
Photographs without any license at all.” Id. ¶ 17. Before initiating this action, MPI “asked
27
Pearson for information regarding its distribution of [MPI‟s] Photographs to Third Parties,” but
28
“Pearson refused to provide that information.” Id. ¶ 18.
2
1
II.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2
On April 18, 2012, in an earlier action filed with the Court, MPI accused Pearson of direct
3
copyright infringement and sought injunctive relief, damages, attorneys‟ fees, and costs. Muench
4
Photography, Inc. v. Pearson Educ., Inc. (“Muench I”), No. 12-cv-01927-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr.
5
18, 2012).1 Unlike this case (“Muench II”), Muench I did not include a cause of action alleging
6
contributory copyright infringement.
On May 14, 2013, MPI moved for leave to amend its Complaint in Muench I to add
7
8
contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims. Muench I, Dkt. No. 36 at 1. Pearson
9
opposed the motion and argued that MPI‟s new claims were different than the ones MPI had been
pursuing to date and that the international discovery required would substantially delay the trial.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Muench I, Dkt. No. 37 at 8-9. The Court denied the motion because MPI had unduly delayed
12
bringing it since it came “over six months after the deadline for amending pleadings and 17 days
13
before the deadline for fact discovery,” and because granting it would prejudice Pearson. Munech
14
I, Dkt. No. 50 at 1.
On August 23, 2013, MPI filed this action, alleging contributory copyright infringement
15
16
against Pearson in violation of the Copyright Act. Compl. ¶¶ 21-23. On September 13, 2013,
17
Pearson filed a motion to relate Muench I and this action, Muench I, Dkt. No. 63, which the Court
18
granted on September 16, 2013, Muench I, Dkt. No. 64.
On September 12, 2013, Pearson moved for summary judgment in Muench I. Muench I,
19
20
Dkt. No. 62. The Court granted the motion on November 19, 2013. Muench I, Dkt. No. 77.
LEGAL STANDARD
21
A motion to dismiss is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where the
22
23
pleadings fail “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The
24
Court must “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the
25
light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519
26
27
28
1
Pearson requests that the Court take judicial notice of the filings in Muench I. Mot. to Dismiss
(Dkt. No. 11) 2 n.2. Because court documents are materials appropriate for judicial notice, the
request is GRANTED. Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011).
3
1
F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008), drawing all reasonable inferences from those facts in the
2
nonmoving party‟s favor. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1080 (9th Cir. 2005). A complaint
3
may be dismissed if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
4
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has facial plausibility when
5
the pleaded factual content “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
6
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). However, a
7
complaint does not suffice “if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.”
8
Id. (quotation marks and brackets omitted).
9
DISCUSSION
10
In its Motion to Dismiss, Pearson argues that MPI‟s Complaint should be dismissed
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
because MPI improperly splits claims and does not allege adequate facts. Br. 4-11. As detailed
12
below, the Court finds that this case is not duplicative of Muench I but that MPI does not allege
13
adequate facts to overcome a motion to dismiss.
14
I.
MPI DOES NOT IMPROPERLY SPLIT CLAIMS.
In determining whether a lawsuit is duplicative of another action, courts in the Ninth
15
16
Circuit apply the same test for claim preclusion by “examin[ing] whether the causes of action and
17
relief sought, as well as the parties . . . are the same.”2 Adams v. Cal. Dep’t. of Health Servs., 487
18
F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007).
To determine whether the causes of action are the same, courts examine four factors: “(1)
19
20
whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by
21
prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the
22
two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the
23
two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.” Harris v. Jacobs, 621 F.2d 341,
24
343 (9th Cir. 1980). The fourth of these factors “is the most important,” Costantini v. Trans
25
World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1202 (9th Cir. 1982), and may itself be decisive, Int’l Union of
26
Operating Eng’rs v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1993). The Ninth Circuit has applied the
27
28
2
The privity element is met here because the parties are the same in both cases.
4
1
claim preclusion test by only looking to the fourth factor without reaching the other criteria. See,
2
e.g., C.D. Anderson & Co, Inc. v. Lemos, 832 F.2d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that
3
second suit was barred solely because it arose out of the same transactional nucleus of facts as the
4
first suit).
5
A. The Causes of Action Are Not Identical.
6
Pearson argues that MPI‟s allegations in this case “arise from the same transactional
7
nucleus of facts as the allegations in Muench I.” Mot. to Dismiss 6. In support of this argument,
8
Pearson emphasizes that Muench I alleges that Pearson “distributed . . . the Photographs without
9
authorization,” and in this case, MPI “again alleges that Pearson distributed the Photographs
without permission.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Pearson also highlights that “[b]oth Muench
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
I and Muench II relate to the same photographs and the same 485 licenses” granted to Pearson,
12
which were “set forth in identical exhibits attached to both complaints.” Id. Pearson claims that
13
MPI “conceded” that the two actions share a common nucleus of facts when MPI stated that “[t]he
14
heart of this case remains, as it has always been, Pearson‟s . . . unauthorized uses of MPI‟s
15
photographs.” Id. (quoting Muench I, Dkt. No. 40 at 5) (emphasis and brackets omitted). Pearson
16
also contends that the two cases are duplicative because the other factors of the transaction test are
17
met given that both actions involve the same interests, rights, and evidence. Id. at 7.
18
The Court is unconvinced by Pearson‟s argument that Muench I and Muench II assert the
19
same cause of action. Munech I is an action for direct copyright infringement whereas Muench II
20
alleges contributory copyright infringement. In particular, Muench I concerns Pearson‟s own use
21
of the Photographs that allegedly violates licenses granted to it. Muench I Compl. (Muench I, Dkt.
22
No. 1) ¶¶ 9-13, 19-23. On the other hand, Muench II concerns Pearson‟s alleged authorization and
23
facilitation of third parties‟ attempts “to distribute Pearson‟s publications containing the
24
Photographs in new territories, to translate its publications into new languages, and to adapt its
25
publications for distribution in additional territories.” Compl. ¶ 9. Though related, the two actions
26
are ultimately premised upon different theories and different facts.
27
28
The language of Muench II‟s Complaint supports this conclusion. For example, it says that
“[b]y transmitting the Photographs to Third Parties, Pearson enabled, induced, caused, facilitated
5
1
or materially contributed to the Third Parties‟ unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the
2
Photographs.” Id. ¶ 12 (emphasis added). The Complaint focuses on Pearson‟s alleged indirect
3
connection to the Third Parties‟ direct infringement, rather than Pearson‟s own alleged direct
4
infringement. By contrast, the complaint in Muench I focuses on how “Pearson used the
5
Photographs in ways that were not permitted under the limited licenses Pearson had obtained.”
6
Muench I Compl. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). Thus, the two suits do not “arise out of the same
7
transactional nucleus of facts.”
For the same reasons, the evidence relevant to this case is likely to be different. Whereas
9
Muench I requires showing that Pearson itself exceeded any license it had or reproduced images
10
without a license, this case requires showing Pearson‟s interactions with third parties abroad and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
how Pearson facilitated the alleged contributory infringement. Pearson itself acknowledges this.
12
Reply 4. The Court is also unaware of why any judgment in Muench II would destroy or impair
13
any rights and interests by any judgment in Muench I, and Pearson has not adequately explained
14
why it would.
15
Pearson relies on Adams v. California Department of Health Services to support its
16
contention that this action should be barred, noting that the Ninth Circuit held that “the fact that
17
plaintiff was denied leave to amend does not give [it] the right to file a second lawsuit based on
18
the same facts.” Br. 4 (quoting Adams, 487 F.3d at 688). In Adams, after the district court denied
19
the plaintiff‟s motion for leave to amend her complaint, the plaintiff filed a second action asserting
20
the same allegations she attempted to bring previously. Adams, 487 F.3d at 687. After the district
21
court “determined that Adams‟[ ] newly filed complaint was duplicative of the complaint she had
22
previously filed in the other case, . . . the court dismissed the new complaint with prejudice.” Id.
23
at 687-88. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the two actions “share a common
24
transactional nucleus of facts” and that “any judgment in the present action necessarily would
25
destroy or impair rights and interests established by the judgment in the first action.” Id. at 690.
26
Pearson‟s reliance on Adams is misplaced because this action is not based on the same
27
facts as those for which the Court denied leave to amend. Muench I is premised upon Pearson‟s
28
own alleged infringement in the United States and Muench II involves allegations that Pearson
6
1
assisted third parties in their infringement abroad. While there are certainly related facts between
2
Muench I and Muench II, MPI‟s claims will ultimately depend upon different proof.
Pearson quotes Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Systems for the proposition that “[i]t is [ ]
3
4
appropriate to weight more heavily the common nucleus of operative fact criterion [ ] where denial
5
of leave to amend was based on unjustified untimeliness on the part of the plaintiff that would
6
cause unfair prejudice to the defendant.” 430 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 2005). But there, the court
7
was considering a situation in which the plaintiff sought to add claims based on the same alleged
8
actions of the defendant. Here, as explained above, the challenged conduct is different from the
9
challenged conduct in Muench I. The cases cited by Pearson are inapplicable here.
B. The Relief Sought Is Not Identical.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Pearson argues that MPI “impermissibly seeks statutory damages” in both cases “in
12
violation of the Copyright Act‟s mandate that a copyright owner may elect „an award of statutory
13
damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work . . . .‟” Reply
14
6 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1)) (original emphasis). Pearson asserts that MPI “would only be
15
entitled to a single award per photo” and that these two suits “demonstrate[] that the damages in
16
these actions are indeed the same.” Reply 6.
Pearson‟s argument is belied by its own quotation of the statute‟s text. As Pearson
17
18
acknowledges, the Act only states that a plaintiff “may elect” to receive damages in the manner
19
described, not “must.” In addition, the statute only refers to “infringements involved in the
20
action,” not all actions that could ever be brought. Pearson‟s interpretation would lead to the
21
untenable result that a plaintiff could not recover from a defendant if that defendant again
22
infringes upon the plaintiff‟s copyright after a case has ended. Further, the Act explicitly provides
23
for “actual damages and profits” instead of statutory damages. 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). MPI is
24
seeking relief for a separate set of acts, not the same acts as those alleged in Muench I. Nothing
25
about the damages MPI seeks in this suit shows that the suit is improper.
26
II.
27
28
THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS.
A defendant is liable for contributory copyright infringement if it “(1) knew of the direct
infringement; and (2) [ ] either induced, caused, or materially contributed to the infringing
7
1
conduct.” Luvdarts, LLC v. A.T. & T. Mobility, LLC, 710 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2013).
2
Pearson argues that “MPI‟s Complaint should also be dismissed because it fails to allege facts that
3
give rise to a plausible inference of contributory infringement,” and that MPI‟s Complaint rests on
4
“conclusory allegations.” Br. 9-10. MPI responds that its allegations are sufficient, particularly
5
since Pearson controls the information that would allow it to plead facts more specifically.
6
The sufficiency of this pleading is a close question on which federal district courts have
diverged when assessing similar complaints. Pearson relies on Viesti Associates, Inc. v. Pearson
8
Education, Inc., No. 12-cv-02240, 2013 WL 4052024 (D. Colo. Aug. 12, 2013), where the
9
plaintiff brought a claim against Pearson for contributory copyright infringement and alleged
10
substantially similar facts as those alleged in this case. Viesti, 2013 WL 4052024, at *7. The
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
Viesti court granted Pearson‟s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff‟s allegations were
12
insufficient because they did not contain factual assertions “describing instances of Pearson
13
encouraging or promoting third parties to infringe” upon the plaintiff‟s photographs and were
14
“nothing more than a recitation of one element of a contributory copyright infringement claim.”
15
Viesti, 2013 WL 4052024, at *7, *9.
16
MPI points to StockFood America, Inc. v. Pearson Education, Inc., No. 12-cv-124, 2012
17
WL 5986791 (D. Me. Nov. 29, 2012), and Bavendam v. Pearson Education, Inc., No. 13-cv-3096,
18
2013 WL 5530008 (D.N.J. Oct. 3, 2013), where the factual allegations were similar to those here
19
and in Viesti, but the courts found them to sufficiently plead a claim of contributory infringement.
20
Opp‟n 12-13. In StockFood, the plaintiff alleged “that Pearson knew when it reproduced and
21
distributed the Photographs that the Third Parties would reproduce and distribute them without
22
StockFood‟s authorization and knew that the Third Parties were in fact doing so.” StockFood Am.,
23
2012 WL 5986791, at *6. The plaintiff also alleged “that, pursuant to licenses between Pearson
24
and the Third Parties, Pearson transmitted electronic files containing the Photographs to the Third
25
Parties knowing that they (the Third Parties) would reproduce and distribute the Photographs
26
without StockFood‟s permission.” Id. These allegations, the court held, “suffice to show that
27
Pearson induced, caused, or materially contributed to the Third Parties‟ infringement.” Id. The
28
court in Bavendam also found sufficient a complaint alleging “third-party infringement, Pearson‟s
8
1
knowledge of that infringement, and material contribution in the form of reproduction,
2
transmission, and facilitation” since it supplied “enough facts to survive a motion to dismiss
3
because, if accepted as true, [the] factual allegations state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
4
face.” Bavendam, 2013 WL 5530008, at *5 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
5
The Court agrees with the reasoning in Viesti and finds that MPI has failed to sufficiently
6
allege facts to support its claim of contributory infringement. MPI relies on „information and
7
belief‟ allegations regarding Pearson‟s knowledge that the Third Parties would reproduce and
8
distribute the Photographs, that Pearson had the right and ability to control the Third Parties‟ use
9
of the Photographs, and that Pearson knew that the Third Parties were distributing the Photographs
without permission, but never explains the factual bases for those beliefs. See United States v.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Ctr. for Diagnostic Imaging, Inc., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1221 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (“A plaintiff
12
relying on „information and belief‟ must state the factual basis for the belief.”). Without factual
13
allegations describing in greater detail the instances of Pearson‟s inducing, causing, facilitating, or
14
materially contributing to third-party infringement, “the [C]omplaint does not permit the Court to
15
infer more than the mere possibility of Pearson‟s misconduct.” Viesti, 2013 WL 4052024, at *7.
16
While MPI argues that its Complaint alleges more than the Viesti complaint because the Viesti
17
plaintiffs did not allege that the defendant knew of the potential for third-party infringement,
18
whereas MPI does here, MPI‟s one conclusory assertion that “Pearson knew when it reproduced
19
and distributed the Photographs that the Third Parties would reproduce and distribute the
20
Photographs without Plaintiff‟s authorization” is not enough for the Complaint to state a claim.
21
Compl. ¶ 13. As the Ninth Circuit held, “conclusory allegations that the [defendant] had the
22
required knowledge of infringement are plainly insufficient.” Luvdarts, 710 F.3d at 1072.
23
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
24
statements, do not suffice,” but that is all MPI provides. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (noting that “more
25
than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” is required). MPI must
26
provide the basis for its “information and belief” allegations and assert “factual allegations
27
describing instances of Pearson encouraging or promoting third parties to infringe” in order to
28
support a plausible claim for relief. Viesti, 2013 WL 4052024, at *7 (emphasis added). No such
9
1
factual allegations are present in the Complaint, and so MPI does not state a plausible claim of
2
contributory copyright infringement.
CONCLUSION
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
For the reasons above, the defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with leave to
amend within 30 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2013
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?