Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08030/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08030-3/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, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Pearson Education, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-8030-PCT-PGR

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Bean’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal. (Doc. 49.)

The Court previously granted in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiff

seeks certification of the portion of that Order dismissing Plaintiff’s copyright infringement

claims with respect to the images contained in six compilations of photographs. Defendant

opposes the motion. (Doc. 54.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

DISCUSSION

 A district court in its discretion may certify an issue for interlocutory appeal under 28

U.S.C. § 1292(b) where (1) there is a “controlling question of law,” (2) on which there are

“substantial grounds for difference of opinion,” and (3) “an immediate appeal may materially

advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d

1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982)). Because § 1292(b) is a departure from the normal rule that only

final judgments are appealable, the statute “must be construed narrowly,” James v. Price

Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1067 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002), and “applied sparingly and only

in exceptional cases,” United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 788 n.11 (9th Cir. 1959)

Case 3:11-cv-08030-PGR Document 62 Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 The photographs are contained in compilations registered by Corbis Corporation, a

stock photography licensing agency. A court in this district dismissed infringement claims

based on images in these compilations, ruling that registration of the compilations was not

sufficient to register the individual photographs under § 409 of the Copyright Act. Bean v.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co., CV 10-8034-PCT-DGC, 2010 WL 3168624 (D.

Ariz. August 10, 2010). This Court relied on that ruling in dismissing Plaintiff’s copyright

infringement claims with respect to the photos in the compilations. (Doc. 46 at 4–5.) 

- 2 -

(noting longstanding federal policy against “piecemeal appeals”). See United States Rubber

Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th Cir. 1966) (“The legislative history of subsection (b)

of section 1292 . . . indicates that it was to be used only in extraordinary cases where decision

of an interlocutory appeal might avoid protracted and expensive litigation. It was not

intended merely to provide review of difficult rulings in hard cases.”) (footnotes omitted).

The party seeking certification of an interlocutory appeal has the burden to show the presence

of exceptional circumstances. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 474–75 (1978).

Plaintiff contends that he has satisfied that burden. In response, Defendant contends

that certification is unnecessary because the issue is already under consideration by the Ninth

Circuit, whose resolution of the matter will bind this Court. (Doc. 54 at 3.) The cases before

the Court of Appeals are Alaska Stock, LLC v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, No. 10-36010

(9th Cir.), and Bean v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, No. 10-16771 (9th Cir.). The latter case

concerns the same six photo compilations at issue in this Court’s Order.1

 In his reply,

however, Plaintiff states that “since Bean filed the motion to certify in this case, both of the

parallel cases on appeal were settled in principle by mediation on June 8, 2011. The parties

will move for dismissal of those appeals after the settlement agreements are finalized, which

the parties expect to occur within 30 days.” (Doc. 57 at 2.) Under these circumstances,

Plaintiff states, “the issue presented in the interlocutory appeal will not be pending before

any appellate court.” (Id.)

If Plaintiff is correct and the issue will not ultimately be addressed in Alaska Stock or

Bean v. HMH, then arguably the first two criteria under § 1292(b) are satisfied, in that there

is a controlling question of law as to which there remain substantial grounds for difference

Case 3:11-cv-08030-PGR Document 62 Filed 06/28/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

of opinion. (See Doc. 49 at 3–4.) However, Plaintiff has not shown that immediate appeal

with respect to that single issue will materially advance the termination of this litigation.

Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, further litigation will be required to resolve

Plaintiff’s remaining copyright infringement claims. See Costar Group Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.,

172 F.Supp.2d 747, 750 (D.Md. 2001) (denying interlocutory appeal based on “general

policy against piecemeal appeals in the course of ongoing litigation, especially where even

a resolution in [plaintiff’s] favor on appeal would not prevent a trial as to other issues still

outstanding”); Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. America, Nos. CV 05-6838 CAS

(MANx), CV 05-8908 CAS (MANx), 2010 WL 4536779, at *7 (C.D.Cal. November 01,

2010); Jackson v. Placer County, No. CIV. S-05-79 FCD KJM, 2007 WL 2127528, at *3

(E.D.Cal. July 24, 2007). 

Plaintiff states that if the Court of Appeal reverses, he “will only require additional

discovery on the specific textbooks at issue in the revived claims, which should not delay any

trial date the Court sets.” (Id.) However, speculation that an interlocutory appeal will not

delay resolution of the case falls short of showing that an appeal will materially advance the

termination of the litigation.

In sum, Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of establishing that the issue on which

he seeks interlocutory appeal is the type of exceptional circumstances that would warrant

departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final

judgment.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (Doc.

49).

DATED this 27th day of June, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08030-PGR Document 62 Filed 06/28/11 Page 3 of 3