Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00726/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00726-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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

Morgan Howarth,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Ryan Patterson, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00726-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

Thisis a copyright infringement action. On September 26, 2019, with leave of Court

(Doc. 57), Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 65). The two-count First 

Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants are liable for direct and vicarious copyright

infringement. (Doc. 65 at 4-6). Pending before the Court is the “Motion to Dismiss First 

Amended Complaint” (Doc. 75) filed by Ryan Patterson and Patterson Homes, LLC

(collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants seek dismissal of the First Amended Complaint

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons explained herein, 

the Court will deny Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 75).1

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed 

when a plaintiff’s allegations fail to set forth a set of facts that, if true, would entitle the 

complainant to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. 

 

1 The parties have consented to proceeding before a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and 28 U.S.C.§ 636(c). (Doc. 21). 

Case 2:19-cv-00726-ESW Document 92 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 5
- 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

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to 

survive a motion to dismiss). The pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond the 

speculative level; a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) ). On a motion to dismiss, “the 

Court must take all well-pleaded allegations of material fact as true and construe them in 

the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Great Minds v. Office Depot, Inc., No. 

18-55331, 2019 WL 7206433, at *3 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2019). A court is not required to 

accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, review is ordinarily limited to the contents of 

the complaint and material properly submitted with the complaint. Van Buskirk v. Cable 

News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002); Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard 

Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990). Under the incorporation by 

reference doctrine, the court may also consider documents “whose contents are alleged in 

a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically 

attached to the pleading.” Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled 

on other grounds by 307 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002).

II. DISCUSSION

To establish copyright infringement, a party must show (i) ownership of a valid

copyright and (ii) unauthorized copying by another party of the constituent original

elements of the work. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). 

There are three doctrines of copyright liability: direct copyright infringement, contributory 

copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement. To prove a claim of direct 

copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show that he owns the copyright and that the 

defendant violated one or more of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. 

A & M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). A person may be 

liable as a contributory infringer if the person has knowledge of the infringing activity and

induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. Id. at 1019 

Case 2:19-cv-00726-ESW Document 92 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 5
- 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

(quoting Gershwin Publ’g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d 

Cir. 1971)). The knowledge requirement for contributory copyright infringement includes

both those with actual knowledge and those who have reason to know of direct 

infringement. Id. at 1020. Finally, a defendant is vicariously liable for copyright 

infringement if he enjoys a direct financial benefit from another’s infringing activity and 

“has the right and ability to supervise” the infringing activity. Id. at 1022 (quoting 

Gershwin Publ'g Corp., 443 F.2d at 1162). The vicarious infringer need not know that he 

is infringing. MetroGoldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 125 S.Ct. 2764, 2776 

n.9 (2005).

A. The Motion to Dismiss will be Denied as to Count I (Direct Copyright 

Infringement)

Plaintiff is an architectural photographer. Plaintiff alleges that in or around July

2018, Plaintiff discovered a website that used, without Plaintiff’s consent, one of his 

copyrighted photographs to promote Defendants’ home remodeling services. (Doc. 65, ¶¶

10, 13-15). In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants allege that Plaintiff “offers no factual 

evidence” that Defendants have infringed Plaintiff’s federally registered copyrights. (Doc.

75 at 7). 

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleadings 

set forth in the complaint. “When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, 

before the reception of any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily 

a limited one. The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the 

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 

232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). 

Here, the First Amended Complaint alleges that three versions of a marketing piece 

using Plaintiff’s copyrighted photograph were discovered online. In one version, Ryan 

Patterson was identified as the author. (Doc. 65, ¶ 14; Doc. 65-2). Another version 

identified Patterson Homes as the author, and the final version identified Patterson 

Remodeling as the author. (Doc. 65, ¶ 14; Docs. 65-3, 65-4). The First Amended 

Complaint further alleges that “Defendant Patterson—as the dominant influence in 

Case 2:19-cv-00726-ESW Document 92 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 5
- 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

Patterson Homes and Patterson Remodeling—determined and/or directed the policies that

led to the infringements complained of herein, and is therefore jointly and severally liable 

for any direct copyright infringement committed by Patterson Homes and/or Patterson 

Remodeling.” (Doc. 65, ¶ 19). Plaintiff does not need to allege that Defendants owned the

website on which the alleged infringing marketing pieces were posted.2 See Williams v. 

Aho, No. CV162088PSGFFMX, 2016 WL 10999270, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2016)

(“Because Plaintiff did not need to allege that Defendant owned newsblaze.com to state a 

claim for copyright infringement [of a photograph taken by Plaintiff], the Court denies 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to allege that Defendant owned the domain name 

newsblaze.com.”). Assuming the truth of all facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint

and construing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Count I 

sufficiently states a claim for direct copyright infringement against all Defendants. 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 75) is denied as to Count I. 

B. The Motion to Dismiss will be Denied as to Count II (Vicarious Copyright 

Infringement)

The First Amended Complaint alleges that

to the extent that the Photo was copied and posted to the

website in question by an employee of Defendants and/or a 

third party, Defendants are liable for vicarious infringement 

because the person working as their agent; and/or because

Defendants had the right and ability to supervise the person’s 

infringing activities and enjoyed a financial benefit from those 

activities by virtue of the heightened web traffic and leads that

were generated through their use of the Photo.

 (Doc. 65, ¶ 23). Defendants assert that the First Amended Complaint contains a 

“threadbare recitation of the elements for vicarious liability.” (Doc. 75 at 8). Plaintiff

contends that “Count II fails to allege any facts plausibly suggesting that Ryan Patterson 

or Patterson Homes LLC intentionally induced or encouraged third parties to infringe 

Plaintiff’s copyrights.” (Id. at 11). 

 

2 Defendants contend that “[w]ithout factual evidence to determine who the owner 

of the website is, there can be no copyright infringement, nor vicarious liability.” (Doc. 75 

at 11).

Case 2:19-cv-00726-ESW Document 92 Filed 01/14/20 Page 4 of 5
- 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

As the Ninth Circuit has explained, a “claim may be dismissed only if it appears 

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 

entitle him to relief.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) (Internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court finds that the First Amended Complaint

alleges facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” as to a claim 

for vicarious copyright infringement against all Defendants. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 75) will be denied as to Count II.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED denying the “Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint” 

(Doc. 75) filed by Ryan Patterson and Patterson Homes, LLC.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint motion to amend 

the Scheduling Order no later than January 28, 2020.

Dated this 13th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00726-ESW Document 92 Filed 01/14/20 Page 5 of 5