Freeman v. Apple, Inc.

Background

Lynne Freeman brought one copyright-infringement claim against Apple under the Copyright Act. She alleged that Apple’s display, distribution, and sales of books in the Crave series infringed her copyright. The opinion states that Freeman is a romance author and that the series was written by nonparty Tracy Deebs-Elkenaney, who writes under the pseudonym Tracy Wolff.

Freeman had three related copyright cases pending in the Southern District of New York involving the same controversy and other parties, including the publisher and retailers. Apple moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this case to that district, or alternatively to stay the case while the New York cases proceeded. Freeman opposed transfer but agreed that a stay would be appropriate. The opinion states that Freeman was domiciled in Alaska and that Apple was domiciled, incorporated, and headquartered in California.

Transfer Analysis

Section 1404(a) allows a federal court to transfer a case to another district where it could have been brought when convenience and the interests of justice favor transfer. The court first determined that the case could have been brought in the Southern District of New York. Under the federal copyright venue statute, a copyright case may be brought where the defendant resides or may be found. The court concluded that Apple was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York because it sold e-books there and had distribution and indemnity agreements with New York-based Macmillan. Those contacts were related to Freeman’s claim, which concerned Apple’s sale and distribution of the allegedly infringing books. The court also found that exercising jurisdiction would comply with constitutional due-process requirements.

The court then weighed the relevant convenience and fairness factors. Freeman’s choice of the California forum received significant deference, particularly because she reported panic attacks when flying and said that litigating in New York would harm her physical and mental health. The court nevertheless found that this factor did not require keeping the case in California.

Several other factors favored transfer. The court found that Apple’s relevant contacts with the claim were primarily in New York, where the agreements governing distribution were based, while Apple’s California headquarters alone did not outweigh those contacts. The court also found that access to proof, litigation costs, and the ability to compel witnesses favored transfer because of the related New York cases. The underlying legal issue in the cases was the same: whether Freeman’s copyright had been infringed. Fact discovery had already been completed in the first New York action, making coordinated litigation there more convenient.

Other factors were neutral. Both courts were equally familiar with federal copyright law; no relevant forum-selection clause applied; and the public-policy interests of the two forums generally balanced each other, although the alleged infringement had a connection to New York.

Disposition

The court granted Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. It denied Apple’s alternative request to stay the case as moot. The order addressed the proper forum and did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement claim.