Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05381/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05381-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANS LANTING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION 

HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05381-DMR 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 30

Before the court is Plaintiff Frans Lanting, Inc.’s revised motion for leave to amend the 

complaint in this copyright infringement action against Defendants McGraw-Hill Education 

Global Education Holdings, LLC and McGraw-Hill School Education Holdings, LLC 

(collectively “Defendants” or “MHE”). [Docket No. 30.] Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ use of 

certain photos infringed Plaintiff’s copyrights by using them beyond the scope of the applicable 

license agreements. In the revised First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remove sixty-six 

of the ninety-seven originally pleaded claims which have been shown by Defendants’ usage data 

to be noninfringing. Plaintiff also seeks to add seventy-two new claims for copyright 

infringement. The court determined that this matter is appropriate for adjudication without oral 

argument. See Civil Local Rule 7-1(b); [Docket No. 46]. After carefully considering the parties’ 

submissions, the court GRANTS the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

The following factual allegations are taken from the Complaint. Plaintiff is a corporation

owned by professional photographer Frans Lanting. Plaintiff is engaged in licensing photographic 

images to publishers, including Defendants. Complaint [Docket No. 1] ¶ 2. Plaintiff owns

copyrights in certain photographs (“Subject Photographs”), which are the subject of this lawsuit. 

Id. at ¶ 6. The Subject Photographs have been registered with the United States Copyright Office 

Case 4:15-cv-05381-DMR Document 48 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

or have pending copyright registrations. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7. 

Between 2005 and 2013, Plaintiff sold Defendants limited licenses to use copies of the 

Subject Photographs in particular educational publications. Id. at ¶ 8. The licenses between 

Plaintiff and Defendants were expressly limited by number of copies, distribution area, language, 

duration, and/or media. Id. Plaintiff alleges that, after obtaining the licenses, Defendants 

exceeded the licenses and infringed Plaintiff’s copyrights in the Subject Photographs in various 

ways, including printing more copies than authorized, distributing publications containing the 

Subject Photographs outside the authorized distribution area, publishing the Subject Photographs 

in electronic, ancillary, or derivative publications without permission, publishing the Subject 

Photographs in international editions and foreign publications without permission, and publishing 

the Subject Photographs beyond the specified time limits. Id. at ¶ 9. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit bringing claims for copyright 

infringement and contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§501 et 

seq. Compl. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. 

Plaintiff’s original complaint asserted ninety-seven claims for copyright infringement based on its 

own direct invoicing with Defendants since April 2005. Compl. Ex. 1. 

On April 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed its First Motion to Amend the Complaint which sought to 

re-plead the original ninety-seven claims and to add seventy-five additional claims. [Docket Nos. 

29, 29-1.] After counsel for the parties met and conferred, Plaintiff filed a Revised First Motion to 

Amend the Complaint on April 15, 2016, proposing to re-plead only thirty-one of the original

claims, and to add seventy-two new claims relating to images managed through Corbis

Corporation. [Docket Nos. 30, 30-1 at Ex. 1b.] Corbis Corporation represents and handles 

licensing on behalf of numerous photographers, including Plaintiff. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that leave to amend the pleadings before trial 

should be given freely “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Leave to amend is to 

be granted with “extreme liberality.” Sonoma Cty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty., 708 

Case 4:15-cv-05381-DMR Document 48 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 

712 (9th Cir. 2001)). In determining whether justice requires leave to amend, courts consider the 

five factors initially identified in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962): “bad faith, undue 

delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has 

previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“[I]t is the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” 

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 

The decision to grant or deny a request for leave to amend rests in the discretion of the trial court. 

Cal. ex rel. Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chem. Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th 

Cir. 2004); see also Hurn v. Ret. Fund Tr. of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Indus. of S. Cal., 648 

F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1981); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 1973) 

(“Where there is lack of prejudice to the opposing party and the amended complaint is obviously 

not frivolous, or made as a dilatory maneuver in bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion to deny such 

a motion.”). 

IV. ANALYSIS 

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s proposed amendment to withdraw sixty-six of the 

originally pleaded claims, but do challenge Plaintiff’s request to add the seventy-two new claims

relating to images managed by Corbis (“Corbis claims”). Defs.’ Opp. [Docket No. 32] at 3.

Defendants make two arguments. First, they contend that Plaintiff unduly delayed in seeking 

amendment related to the Corbis claims. Id. at 1. Defendants also assert that the Corbis claims 

are subject to a mandatory forum-selection clause that dictates that they must be brought in New 

York. Id. at 6, 9-15. 

A. Undue Delay

The undue delay inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiff knew of the facts or legal bases 

for the amendments at the time the operative pleading was filed and nevertheless failed to act 

promptly to add them to the pleadings. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 

F.3d 946, 953 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding motion to amend untimely and prejudicial when filed 

fifteen months after discovery of new facts). In other words, undue delay is “dilatory motive.” In 

Case 4:15-cv-05381-DMR Document 48 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 7
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

re: Facebook Privacy Litig., No. C–10–02389–RMW, 2015 WL 632329, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 

2015) (citation omitted). 

In June 2015, Plaintiff first became aware of Defendants’ potential infringement involving 

images that are handled and invoiced through Corbis. Kerr Suppl. Decl. [Docket No. 44] ¶ 6. As 

part of its investigation, on March 3, 2016, Plaintiff requested that Corbis produce copies of 

invoices related to the potential claims. On April 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed its motion to amend the 

complaint. [Docket No. 29.] As of April 15, 2016, Corbis still had not provided copies of the 

requested invoices; Plaintiff therefore drafted its Proposed Amended Complaint [Docket No. 30] 

using royalty statements. Kerr Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 5, 9. Corbis “regularly” provides royalty statements 

to Plaintiff that identify Plaintiff’s images that are licensed, to whom they are licensed, and the 

related fees. Frans Lanting Decl. [Docket No. 45] ¶ 13. However, the royalty statements do not 

include information about which publications contain the images, or the limitations on the use of 

the images. Id. at ¶ 14. Plaintiff says that it has been diligently attempting to obtain the invoices

from Corbis, but has been unable to obtain them and contends that it did not unduly delay in 

seeking amendment. 

Defendants claim that Plaintiff has long been aware of the new proposed claims and that it

already had access to certain Corbin invoices from prior litigation. Defs.’ Opp. [Docket No. 32] at 

1. Defendants thus argue that Plaintiff did not need the requested Corbis invoices to draft its 

Proposed Amended Complaint. Defs.’ Resp. Pl.’s Suppl. Decls. (“Defs.’ Supp. Br.”) [Docket No. 

47]. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s counsel “have been litigating for more than three years 

claims involving many of the very same invoices from Corbis, which are explicitly pleaded in 

other litigants’ cases.” Defs.’ Opp. at 2. Defendants state that “[t]here is no question that 

Plaintiff’s counsel [have] had in their possession a substantial number of the Corbis invoices now 

pleaded in this case since well before the Complaint here.” Id. (emphasis in original). Defendants 

also contend that at the time Plaintiff filed its original complaint, Plaintiff was able to plead the 

Corbis claims based solely on information in the royalty statements, rather than the Corbis 

invoices. Defs.’ Supp. Br. at 2.

In response, one of Plaintiff’s counsel from the firm of Harmon & Seidman submitted 

Case 4:15-cv-05381-DMR Document 48 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 7
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sworn testimony clarifying that, while Harmon & Seidman had received access to some Corbis 

licenses issued to Defendants in the course of representing other clients in separate actions, 

counsel did not have “overlapping invoices”1for most of the claims in Plaintiff’s Proposed 

Amended Complaint. Kerr Supp. Decl. at ¶¶ 17-22. Counsel further explained that for the 

overlapping invoices that were provided by Corbis in other actions, the information relating to 

Plaintiff had been redacted, since Plaintiff was not involved in that litigation. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 30, 31. 

Counsel also clarified that, while Defendants had produced some overlapping invoices in 

discovery in separate cases involving other clients, all such production was designated 

confidential. Id. at ¶¶ 33, 39. Plaintiff’s counsel represented that usage data has been made public 

in prior cases for only two licenses at issue in this case. Id. at ¶ 45. 

The parties have not been transparent with the court about the relationship between the 

information contained in the Corbis invoices and Plaintiff’s ability to state a claim for copyright 

infringement based on use that exceeded the scope of the Corbis licenses. In reviewing the 

examples of the invoices provided by Defendants [Docket No. 34-5] and Plaintiff [Docket No. 44-

2], they appear to have important factual information about the scope of the licenses, such as the 

start and end date of the license, the size of use permitted, placement of the image, distribution 

quantity, and any license addendum. Although at some level Plaintiff was able to plead the claims 

against Corbis without the invoices, it was not unreasonable for Plaintiff to attempt to obtain the 

licenses for the photographs at issue prior to filing its claims against Corbis. The court assumes 

that having such information would allow Plaintiff to make its pleading more accurate. 

More importantly, Defendants have not articulated any prejudice that they would suffer as 

a result of the proposed amendment. Prejudice carries the greatest weight in determining leave to 

amend. Eminence Capital, LLC, 316 F.3d at 1052. Based on the facts before the court, there is no

evidence of prejudice, undue delay, bad faith, or futility. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend 

comes early in the case, well before the July 29, 2016 deadline to amend the pleadings to add new 

claims, and there is no reason to deny the amendment. March 2, 2016 Civil Conference Minute 

 

1 An “overlapping invoice” is a Corbis invoice obtained through other litigation that also happens 

to contain licensing information about images related to this case. Kerr Supp. Decl. at ¶ 18.

Case 4:15-cv-05381-DMR Document 48 Filed 06/13/16 Page 5 of 7
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Order [Docket No. 26]; McFall v. Stacy & Witbeck, Inc., No. 14-CV-04150-JSC, 2016 WL 

2851589, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2016) (no undue delay where plaintiff moved promptly after 

discovery of information and did so prior to expiration of any case deadlines, granting leave to 

amend even though the request came at the close of discovery). 

B. Corbis Forum Selection Clause 

Defendants also oppose Plaintiff’s motion to amend on the basis that Plaintiff’s proposed 

additional claims are governed by three Preferred Pricing Agreements between McGraw-Hill 

Education and Corbis (“Corbis PPAs”), which contain a forum selection clause indicating 

exclusive jurisdiction in New York. Opp. at 6. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s proposed 

amendment would be futile in light of the forum selection clause. Id. at 8. They also argue that a 

number of the invoices supporting the claims that Plaintiff proposes to add to this case are already 

pending or have already had underlying infringement contentions resolved by the courts in the 

Southern District of New York. Id. at 7-8. Defendants ask the court to deny Plaintiff’s motion 

based on a finding that the proposed amendments are futile because they are subject to a forum 

selection clause that requires that they be litigated in New York. Id. at 15. 

Defendants misconstrue the requirements of Rule 15. “[A] proposed amendment is futile 

only if no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a 

valid and sufficient claim or defense.” Miller v. Rykoff–Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir.

1988) (citing Baker v. Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 451 F. Supp. 84, 89 (N.D. Cal. 1978)). Defendants

do not argue that the proposed new claims of copyright infringement are inadequately pleaded or 

that no set of facts can be proved that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim of copyright 

infringement. To the extent that Defendants wish to raise the issue of venue, they must do so 

through an appropriate motion.2

 

2 Defendants rely on the case of Deadco Petroleum v. Trafigura AG, 617 F. App'x 636 (9th Cir. 

2015) (unpublished), to argue that Plaintiff should be denied leave to amend based on the forum 

selection clause. In Deadco, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on the basis of 

improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3); the issue of venue was squarely 

before the court and all claims in the action were subject to the forum selection clause. Deadco 

Petroleum v. Trafigura AG, No. 2:12-CV-01446-MCE, 2012 WL 6720566, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 

26, 2012), aff'd, 617 F. App'x 636 (9th Cir. 2015). In response to a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, a court 

may dismiss a case or “if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division 

Case 4:15-cv-05381-DMR Document 48 Filed 06/13/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

V. CONCLUSION

The court grants leave to file the Proposed Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file the

pleading by June 20, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

 

in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Defendants have provided no 

authority that denying leave to amend is proper where, as here, Defendants concede that the claims 

may properly be brought in federal court and the issue of venue is not squarely before the court. 

Case 4:15-cv-05381-DMR Document 48 Filed 06/13/16 Page 7 of 7