Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-04844
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Laatz v. Zazzle, Judge Freeman denied Laatz’s request to seek reconsideration of an earlier partial summary-judgment ruling.
Nicky Laatz and the defendants, including Zazzle, Inc.
What happened
In Laatz v. Zazzle, Nicky Laatz asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier order that granted part of the defendants’ summary-judgment motion and denied part of it.
Laatz argued that the court had overlooked evidence and arguments about copyright infringement, fraud involving a font license, and whether her copyrights covered font data. The court found that it had considered those issues and that Laatz had not shown a permitted basis for reconsideration.
Judge Freeman denied Laatz’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order did not change the earlier partial summary-judgment ruling.
The detailed version
- Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc. · No. 5:22-cv-04844
- Beth Freeman
- June 16, 2025
Background
Nicky Laatz filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. A motion for leave is a request for permission to file the later motion. The court’s local rule required Laatz to show reasonable diligence and one of several circumstances, including a material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented.
Arguments
Laatz sought reconsideration on three subjects. First, she challenged the application of the separate-accrual rule to her copyright claim and argued that the defendants had not shown that all copying of the BE Software occurred in 2017. She also pointed to evidence that Zazzle created and distributed derivative works of the BE Software. Second, she sought reconsideration of the ruling on her fraud claims based on Zazzle’s purchase of a license for the “Beyond the Mountains” font. Third, she argued that her asserted copyrights were valid as “font data.”
Court’s Analysis
The court found no basis for reconsideration under the local rule’s “manifest failure” standard. Regarding the BE Software, the court said it had considered Laatz’s evidence about use of the software on Zazzle’s servers and had found that the evidence, at most, showed a continuation of alleged infringement in 2017. Regarding the font license, the court said it had considered the license evidence and had found that it did not create a factual dispute on the fraud claims. Regarding “font data,” the court said Laatz had not argued in her opposition to summary judgment how her copyrights were copyrightable as font data.
Disposition
The court ordered that Laatz’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the earlier partial summary-judgment order was DENIED. The order therefore left the earlier summary-judgment ruling unchanged. In the discussion, the court also stated that it “DENIES” Laatz’s motion for reconsideration, but the specific final order denied the motion for leave to file that motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.