_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

1 

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

RYAN T. DUNN (SBN: 215383) 

rdunn@dpllp.com

MATTHEW R. CODY (SBN: 267191) 

mcody@dpllp.com DUNN & PANAGOTACOS LLP 

369 Pine Street, Suite 506 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 982.2100 

Facsimile: (415) 982.2119 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

REBECCA LEIMBACH, an individual, and 

H.L., a minor by and through her guardian ad litem REBECCA LEIMBACH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – OAKLAND DIVISION 

REBECCA LEIMBACH, an individual, and H.L., 

a minor by and through her guardian ad litem 

REBECCA LEIMBACH, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PAPER SOURCE, INC. and DOES 1-20, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND 

JURY DEMAND 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff REBECCA LEIMBACH ( “Plaintiff” or “Mrs. Leimbach”), brings this 

complaint on her own behalf, and as guardian on behalf of her daughter, H.L., in the UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Oakland against PAPER SOURCE, INC. (“Paper 

Source”) and DOES 1-20 (collectively Defendants”) alleging as follows: 

NATURE OF CASE 

1. Mrs. Leimbach is a professional photographer, who owns and operates a website 

(www.rebeccaleimbach.com) dedicated to the promotion, purchase and furtherance of her 

photography. Mrs. Leimbach retains copyright to her photographs and owns all rights in 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

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

her photographic works, including the right to reproduce the works and to publicly 

display and distribute said works. Mrs. Leimbach is hereafter referred to as “Plaintiff”. 

2. Mrs. Leimbach’s daughter, H.L., is a minor (also referred to as “Plaintiff’s Daughter”). 

3. Paper Source owns and operates stationary stores throughout the United States, providing 

paper goods, as well as storage for photographs such as picture frames and picture 

albums. Paper Source also operates and maintains a website through which it will 

advertise its products. Paper Source uses photos in its picture frames and as banner ads 

on its website in order to promote and advertise its products. 

4. Without permission, in order to promote and market its products, Paper Source copied, 

displayed and distributed one of Mrs. Leimbach’s photographs (“Photograph”) in its 

stationary stores and on its website at http://www.papersource.com. The Photograph was 

a photo of Mrs. Leimbach’s young daughter hugging the family’s English Bulldog. 

5. Upon discovery of Paper Source’s unauthorized use, Mrs. Leimbach demanded that Paper 

Source remove the copyrighted work. 

6. By this action, Mrs. Leimbach seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for 

copyright infringement by Defendants. 

THE PARTIES 

7. Plaintiff Rebecca Leimbach is an individual and, at all times herein mentioned, a resident 

of the County of Contra Costa, State of California.

8. Plaintiff’s daughter, H.L., is a minor and also a resident of the County of Contra Costa, 

State of California.

9. On information and belief, Defendant Paper Source is an Illinois Corporation, licensed to 

do business in California and operates a stationary store, providing paper goods, as well 

as storage for photographs such as picture frames and picture albums. Defendant Paper 

Source operates shops in San Francisco, Contra Costa, Berkeley and Marin counties in 

the State of California. Paper Source also operates and maintains a website through 

which it will advertise its products.

JURISDICTION & VENUE 

10. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Paper Source by virtue of its business 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

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

dealings and transactions in California, and specifically transacting, doing and soliciting 

business in California through its physical stores, some of which are located in San 

Francisco, Berkeley, Contra Costa, and Marin counties. 

11. The case arises under the Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. and 17 U.S.C §1201 et 

seq. 

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§1331 and 1338. 

13. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims arising under the laws of 

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because these claims are so related to 

Plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Law that they form part of the same case or controversy 

and derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. 

14. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. §1400(a).The true names and 

capacities of defendants sued as DOES 1 through 20 are unknown to Plaintiffs and 

Plaintiffs pray leave to amend to allege the true names and capacities when they are 

ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thus allege, that at all relevant times 

each of these DOE Defendants were somehow responsible for the alleged acts and 

omissions stated herein. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO ALL CLAIMS 

15. Mrs. Leimbach is an experienced photographer. Her photographs are posted on her blog 

which has a significant following. Mrs. Leimbach has had a photography business for 

over 10 years and is well known locally in the photography business. 

16. On information and belief, at some time in 2016, and without the permission of Plaintiff, 

Paper Source had access to and intentionally copied Mrs. Leimbach’s Photograph. 

Further, Paper Source intentionally and/or negligently copied, and publicly distributed 

and/or displayed the infringed Photograph by placing it on its server, enabling it to appear 

on its publicly accessible website http://www.papersource.com, and to be downloaded 

and copied by members of the public. In addition, around the same time period, multiple 

Paper Source locations, including but not limited to stores in Contra Costa County in 

California; Florida; Arizona; and North Carolina used, distributed, displayed and sold the 

Photograph, as a placeholder photo in its picture frames, which were used to attract and 

market the picture frames to customers. All of Paper Source’s actions were taken without 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

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

prior request or permission of Mrs. Leimbach. 

17. In using and displaying the Photograph, Defendants also used a version that cropped the 

Photograph and removed Copyright Management Information (“CMI”)—Mrs. 

Leimbach’s name—from the lower left corner of the image.

18. On or around January 13, 2016, Mrs. Leimbach discovered that Paper Source committed 

the foregoing acts, when she personally witnessed the Photograph being used at a Paper 

Source store located in Walnut Creek, California (in the county of Contra Costa). 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(MISAPPROPRIATION OF LIKENESS – Common Law and Cal. Civ. Code §3344) 

H.L., by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Against All Defendants 

19. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each of the allegations in each of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth therein. 

20. At all times herein mentioned H.L. was the subject of the Photograph, which Defendants 

improperly reproduced, distributed and publicly displayed in its store and online. 

21. Defendants used an image of a minor, without consent from a parent or legal guardian by 

displaying the image of H.L. for commercial gain without authorization. 

22. Defendants acted in conscious disregard of the rights of the H.L. Defendants’ conduct as 

alleged has damaged and will continue to damage H.L.’s ability to determine the proper 

use of the Photograph. 

23. The acts and omissions of Defendants constitute a knowing misappropriation without 

consent, pursuant to the common law of California. 

24. The acts and omissions of Defendants constitute a misappropriation of the right of 

publicity in the form of the unauthorized commercial use of a photograph in violation of 

California Civil Code § 3344. 

25. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants conduct, as alleged herein, H.L. suffered 

harm, including injury to her peace, happiness and feelings. 

26. H.L. is entitled to damages, according to proof at trial, as well as any profits from the 

unauthorized use attributable to the use. 

27. By and through the conduct of Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged above, 

Defendants, and each of them, are guilty of recklessness, fraud and/or deceit. The 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

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

specific facts set forth above (and incorporated by reference) show a disregard for the 

exclusive work of H.L. In addition to damages, H.L. is entitled to an award of her 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this case against Defendants, 

and each of them, pursuant to the California Civil Code §3344. 

28. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willful, oppressive, fraudulent and 

malicious and therefore, Defendants’ conduct justifies an award of exemplary or punitive 

damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and to make examples of them to 

others as provided for in Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a). 

WHEREFORE, H.L., by and through her Guardian ad Litem prays for judgment as set 

forth below. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT – 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq.) 

By Plaintiff Against All Defendants 

29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in each of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth therein. 

30. Plaintiff has been the true owner and producer of the Photograph, and either holds a 

copyright registration certificate from the United States Copyright Office, or has applied 

for a registration certificate. 

31. Without authorization, Defendants reproduced, displayed, modified, and distributed the 

Photograph belonging to the Plaintiff in order to promote and advertise Defendants’ 

business. 

32. Plaintiff did not authorize Defendants’ reproduction, distribution, modification, or display 

of the photograph, therefore Defendants infringed the copyright of Plaintiff’s creative 

works. 

33. Defendants knew, or should have known, the infringed works were not authorized for use 

by Plaintiff. 

34. Defendants knew, or should have known, their acts constituted copyright infringement. 

35. As a result of their wrongful conduct, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for copyright 

infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. 

36. As a result of the conduct of the Defendants described herein, Plaintiff sustained 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

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

damages, according to proof at trial. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as fully set forth below. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

 (VIOLATION OF DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT–17 U.S.C.§1201 et seq.) 

By Plaintiff Against All Defendants 

37. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in each of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth therein. 

38. Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged above (and incorporated by reference) constitute 

a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), including but not 

limited to, repeatedly removing Mrs. Leimbach’s name from the image and distributing it 

with removed and/or false CMI in a great variety of ways and places. 

39. Defendants knowingly and with intent, induced, enabled and facilitated infringement of 

Plaintiff’s work. 

40. Defendants acted knowingly and with intent within the meaning contained in 17 U.S. 

Code §1202. 

41. As a result of their wrongful conduct, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for infringement 

under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17 U.S. Code §1202(a). 

42. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights, 

Plaintiff sustained damages to be proven at time of trial. 

43. Based on the aforementioned acts of Defendants Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages 

according to proof or statutory damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, under the DMCA. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below. 

PRAYER 

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, jointly and 

severally, as follows: 

1. Ordering an accounting of all revenue received by Paper Source as a result of its 

unlawful conduct. 

2. Awarding H.L. general and special damages according to proof. 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

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

3. Awarding Plaintiff Rebecca Leimbach: 1) Defendants’ profits realized as a result of 

the copyright infringement, or in the Court’s discretion, such sum as the Court finds 

to be just; 2) damages sustained by Plaintiff; 3) reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 

the DMCA; and 4) statutory fines for violation of the DMCA. 

4. For exemplary and punitive damages according to proof at trial;

5. For costs of suit; and, 

6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Dated: December 27, 2016 DUNN & PANAGOTACOS LLP 

By:__________/s/____________ 

Ryan T. Dunn, Esq. 

Matthew R. Cody, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

REBECCA LEIMBACH, an individual, and 

H.L., a minor by and through her guardian 

ad litem REBECCA LEIMBACH

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims for which there is a right to jury 

trial. 

Dated: December 27, 2016 DUNN & PANAGOTACOS LLP 

By:__________/s/____________ 

Ryan T. Dunn, Esq. 

Matthew R. Cody, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

REBECCA LEIMBACH, an individual, and 

H.L., a minor by and through her guardian 

ad litem REBECCA LEIMBACH