Marchante v. Reuters America LLC

Background

Rafael Marchante, a photographer and photojournalist who resides in Spain, sued Reuters America LLC and Reuters News & Media Inc., alleging copyright infringement. The defendants are United States subsidiaries of Thomson Reuters Corporation. Marchante worked for Reuters-related entities as a freelance photographer from 2002 through 2020 and supplied at least 20,110 photographs.

In 2005, Marchante entered into a royalty agreement with Reuters Spain. The agreement gave Reuters Spain an exclusive license to use and further license photographs that Marchante supplied or took on Reuters assignments, while recognizing that Marchante retained the copyrights. It required Reuters to provide licensing information and pay Marchante a percentage of licensing fees. Marchante later claimed that Reuters failed to provide required statements and did not pay all royalties owed. In 2021, he sent notices purporting to terminate the agreement and demanding that Reuters stop using his photographs. He alleged that Reuters entities continued to use and license the photographs.

The defendants moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, a doctrine allowing a court with jurisdiction to dismiss a case so it can be heard in a more convenient foreign forum. They also argued that Marchante failed to state a claim and alternatively sought a stay while a parallel action in Spain was resolved. The opinion’s stated ruling grants dismissal on the forum non conveniens ground.

Forum non conveniens analysis

The court applied a three-part analysis: the amount of deference owed to Marchante’s choice of New York, whether Spain was an adequate alternative forum, and whether private and public-interest factors favored dismissal.

Deference to the chosen forum. The court gave Marchante’s choice of New York reduced deference. It emphasized that he resides in Spain and that the central issues were likely to concern the meaning, performance, alleged breach, and termination of the royalty agreement. The agreement was signed by a Spanish company and a Spanish national in Spain, concerned photographs taken largely in Spain, and was allegedly terminated there. The court acknowledged connections to New York, including the defendants’ operations there and allegations that photographs were licensed from New York, but found those connections insufficient to show that New York was selected primarily for convenience.

The court also considered Marchante’s evidence that contingency-fee arrangements are uncommon in Spain and that his financial circumstances made suit there difficult. It expressed sympathy for that concern but gave it little weight under the governing forum analysis.

Adequacy of Spain. The court found Spain to be an adequate alternative forum. The defendants consented to jurisdiction in Spain, satisfying the requirement that they be subject to process there. The court also found that Spanish courts could litigate the subject matter of the dispute, including copyright infringement and the contract issues central to the defendants’ anticipated defense. The court rejected Marchante’s argument that Spain had to apply United States copyright law or provide an identical remedy. It concluded that Spain’s ability to adjudicate analogous intellectual-property disputes was sufficient.

Private-interest factors. The court found that the private factors generally favored Spain. Relevant documents were in Spain or would be made accessible there, and Spain had the greatest concentration of relevant witnesses, including Marchante, Reuters Spain, and supervisors involved in his work. Potential witnesses were also located in London, Poland, Portugal, and New York. The court further found that proceedings in New York could require translation of Spanish-language documents and testimony and could complicate the application of Spanish law.

Public-interest factors. The court found that Spain had a substantially greater interest in resolving the dispute. It viewed the central issue as the parties’ contractual relationship and the validity or termination of the royalty agreement, rather than primarily the extent of any later United States infringement. Because the agreement and relationship involved Spanish parties and events occurring largely in Spain, and because Spanish law governed the contract issues, the court concluded that Spain was the more appropriate forum.

Disposition

The court held that the record supported dismissal based on forum non conveniens. The defendants’ motion to dismiss on that basis was GRANTED. Marchante’s request for oral argument was DENIED, as moot. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 44 and terminate the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.