BEAN v. JOHN WILEY & SONS INC., CV 11-08028-PCT-FJM. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120315846
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge. The court has before it plaintiff's motion to transfer Bean v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , CV-12-08001-PCT-GMS, to our docket (doc. 99). No party filed a response, and the time for responding has expired. In deciding whether to transfer a related case under LRCiv 42.1, we consider whether matters of substance have been considered in a case, whether a particular judge has the most familiarity with the relevant issues, and whether a case can be reasona
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge. The court has before it plaintiff's motion to transfer Bean v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , CV-12-08001-PCT-GMS, to our docket (doc. 99). No party filed a response, and the time for responding has expired. In deciding whether to transfer a related case under LRCiv 42.1, we consider whether matters of substance have been considered in a case, whether a particular judge has the most familiarity with the relevant issues, and whether a case can be reasonab..
More
ORDER
FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge.
The court has before it plaintiff's motion to transfer Bean v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., CV-12-08001-PCT-GMS, to our docket (doc. 99). No party filed a response, and the time for responding has expired.
In deciding whether to transfer a related case under LRCiv 42.1, we consider whether matters of substance have been considered in a case, whether a particular judge has the most familiarity with the relevant issues, and whether a case can be reasonably viewed as the lead case. Here, plaintiff argues that his recently filed action involves the identical parties and the same types of copyright infringement claims as those in this action. Although both actions allege copyright infringement by defendant's use of plaintiff's photographs in textbooks, there is nothing so unique about these actions that would make us any more equipped than any other judge in this district to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Additionally, there is a fully-briefed motion to dismiss pending in the action plaintiff wishes us to transfer. In sum, there are not compelling reasons to transfer plaintiff's recently-filed action.
IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to transfer related case CV-12-08001-PCT-GMS (doc. 99).
Source: Leagle
