Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01753/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01753-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a 

Washington corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACADEMIC SOFTWARE HQ INC., 

a Nevada corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv1753-BTM-BLM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

[ECF NO. 14]

Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Microsoft”), has 

filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint. (ECF No. 14.) For the reasons 

discussed below, the motion will be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2016, Microsoft filed a complaint against defendant Academic 

Software HQ Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Academic Software HQ”), stating claims 

for copyright and trademark infringement based on Academic Software HQ’s 

allegedly infringing advertisement and sale of Microsoft Software on its internet 

website, academicsoftwarehq.com. Academic Software HQ failed to respond to 

the complaint, and its default was entered on August 15, 2016. Microsoft then filed 

a motion for judgment by default. The Court found Microsoft had not demonstrated

sufficient contacts between Academic Software HQ and California to support the

Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Academic Software HQ, denied the 

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 18 Filed 07/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

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

motion, and issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) why the action should not be 

dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 9, 12.) 

Microsoft responded to the OSC with evidence that a shipment of disks 

containing infringing software was distributed by Academic Software HQ from an 

address in San Diego, and that Shawn Green, Academic Software HQ’s sole 

corporate officer, operated businesses from the same San Diego address. The 

Court found this evidence sufficient to make a prima facie showing that Academic 

Software HQ is subject to general personal jurisdiction in this forum and 

discharged the OSC. (ECF No. 16.)

Microsoft now moves for leave to amend the complaint to add Shawn Green 

as a defendant, and to allege jurisdictional facts supporting the Court’s exercise of 

personal jurisdiction over Green and Academic Software HQ. Microsoft contends 

it learned about Green’s apparent involvement in sending infringing materials on 

behalf of Academic Software HQ when it discovered, in connection with gathering 

evidence for its response to the OSC, that Green was personally operating other 

businesses out of the same San Diego address. It seeks to add him as a defendant 

on grounds he is vicariously, contributorily, or directly liable for the same copyright 

and trademark violations currently asserted against Academic Software HQ. The 

jurisdictional facts it seeks to add to the complaint conform to the evidence it 

submitted in response to the OSC.

Microsoft’s motion was served on Academic Software HQ and is unopposed.

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that leave to amend should 

be freely given “when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), a policy the 

Ninth Circuit applies with “extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 

244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001). “Courts may decline to grant leave to amend 

only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the 

part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously 

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 18 Filed 07/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

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

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the 

amendment, [or] futility of amendment, etc.’” Sonoma County Ass’n of Retired 

Employees v. Sonoma County, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 

Rule 20(a)(2) additionally applies where the proposed amendment adds a 

codefendant. Wright, Miller, Kane, 7 Fed. Practice & Proc.: Civil 3d § 1652 (3d ed. 

2001). Under Rule 20(a)(2), “[p]ersons ... may be joined in one action as 

defendants if ... (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or 

in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, 

or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact 

common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Rule 

20 “is to be construed liberally in order to promote trial convenience and to expedite 

the final determination of disputes.” League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe 

Regional Planning Agency, 558 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 1977); see United Mine 

Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966) (“Under the rules, the 

impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent 

with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly 

encouraged.”). 

The Court finds Microsoft’s motion for leave to amend satisfies the foregoing 

requirements. First, none of the factors that require denial of leave to amend under 

Rule 15(a) are present. The proposed amendment to name Shawn Green as a 

defendant is not futile, because Microsoft alleges he is potentially directly liable 

based on his alleged direct involvement in distributing infringing materials, or 

alternatively that he exercised control over Academic Software HQ and is 

contributorily or vicariously liable for Academic Software HQ’s copyright and 

trademark infringement. See Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 

262-65 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding plaintiff could pursue claims for copyright and 

trademark infringement based on theories of vicarious or contributory liability). The 

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 18 Filed 07/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

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

amendments to add jurisdictional allegations are likewise non-futile. Based on 

Microsoft’s contention it discovered the facts on which its proposed amendments 

are based while gathering evidence in response to the Court’s OSC, there was no 

undue delay in bringing this motion, and in any event, undue delay is not sufficient 

grounds for denying leave to amend. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 

893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990). There is no indication of bad faith, dilatory 

motive, or prejudice to Academic Software HQ, nor has there been a “repeated 

failure to cure deficiencies,” given that this is the first time Microsoft has sought 

leave to amend. 

Second, the addition of Shawn Green as a codefendant satisfies the 

permissive joinder requirements of Rule 20(a)(2). Microsoft’s proposed amended 

complaint asserts claims against Green and Academic Software HQ jointly, and 

the claims arise out of the same transactions or occurrences and present questions 

of law and fact common to both defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A), (B). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Microsoft’s motion meets the requirements 

of Rules 15(a) and 20(a)(2) and will grant leave to amend.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, Microsoft’s motion for leave to amend is 

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: July 3, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 18 Filed 07/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4