Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08030/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08030-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tom Bean, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Pearson Education, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-8030-PCT-PGR

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.

(Doc. 68.) Defendant opposes the motion. (Doc. 81.) 

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on February 25, 2011, alleging copyright infringement and

fraud. (Doc. 1.) The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and granted

in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Docs. 29, 46.) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint

on June 14, 2011. (Doc. 56.) Defendant filed an answer on July 1. (Doc. 66.) 

Plaintiff’s seek leave to file a second amended complaint in order to correct “an

unintentional and inadvertent mistake in the editing process” by which the following

sentence, present in the original complaint, was omitted from the first amended complaint:

“Upon information and belief, Pearson exceeded the permitted uses under the terms of the

limited licenses granted by the Plaintiffs.” (Doc. 68; see Doc. 1, ¶ 16; Doc. 56.)

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff should be

given leave to amend his complaint when justice so requires. Requests for leave are generally

granted with “extreme liberality.” Moss v. United States Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th

Case 3:11-cv-08030-PGR Document 84 Filed 08/16/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Cir. 2009). However, granting leave to amend “is subject to the qualification that the

amendment not cause undue prejudice to the defendant, is not sought in bad faith, and is not

futile.” Thornton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 261 F.3d 789, 799 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation

omitted).

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs intentionally omitted the sentence in acknowledgment

of the lack of support for their claim that Defendant committed infringement with respect to

all of Plaintiffs’ licensed photographs. The Court rejects this argument as grounds for

departing from the policy in favor of liberal amendment. Defendants have not shown bad

faith or prejudice. Further, as set forth in the Court’s order denying in part Defendant’s

motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claims, Defendant has not shown that it would

be futile for Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to reinsert the sentence omitted from the first

amended complaint.

Defendant requests the Court to amend its scheduling order to accommodate the filing

of a second amended complaint. In its scheduling order the Court extended the deadlines

proposed by Defendant, including the discovery deadlines. Defendant has not shown that

reinsertion of the omitted sentence will be so burdensome as to render those deadlines

impracticable. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. 68) is GRANTED.

DATED this 16th day of August, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08030-PGR Document 84 Filed 08/16/11 Page 2 of 2