Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08028/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08028-3/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, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-08028-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion to transfer Bean v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

CV-12-08001-PCT-GMS, to our docket (doc. 99). No party filed a response, and the time

for responding has expired.

In deciding whether to transfer a related case under LRCiv 42.1, we consider whether

matters of substance have been considered in a case, whether a particular judge has the most

familiarity with the relevant issues, and whether a case can be reasonably viewed as the lead

case. Here, plaintiff argues that his recently filed action involves the identical parties and the

same types of copyright infringement claims as those in this action. Although both actions

allege copyright infringement by defendant's use of plaintiff's photographs in textbooks, there

is nothing so unique about these actions that would make us any more equipped than any

other judge in this district to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Additionally, there is a fullybriefed motion to dismiss pending in the action plaintiff wishes us to transfer. In sum, there

are not compelling reasons to transfer plaintiff's recently-filed action.

Case 3:11-cv-08028-FJM Document 118 Filed 03/14/12 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 -

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to transfer related case CV-12-

08001-PCT-GMS (doc. 99).

DATED this 14th day of March, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08028-FJM Document 118 Filed 03/14/12 Page 2 of 2