Freeman v. Apple, Inc.
- Louis Stanton
- 1:23-cv-07051
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Freeman v. Apple, Judge Orrick transferred the copyright case to New York because the convenience factors favored transfer.
Lynne Freeman and Apple, Inc.; the case was ordered transferred from the Northern District of California to the Southern District of New York, without a decision on the copyright claim.
What happened
In Freeman v. Apple, Inc., Lynne Freeman sued Apple, Inc. for allegedly selling and distributing books that infringed her copyright. Apple asked to move the case to the Southern District of New York, where Freeman had three related copyright cases involving the same underlying dispute.
The court ruled that the case could have been brought in New York because Apple sold the allegedly infringing electronic books there and had agreements with a New York-based publisher. It also found that coordinating the related cases in New York would make access to evidence, witness attendance, and litigation more convenient. Freeman’s health concerns and choice of California counted against transfer, but they did not outweigh the other factors.
The motion to transfer was granted, and Apple’s alternative request to pause the case was denied as moot. Judge H. Orrick did not decide whether Apple infringed Freeman’s copyright.
The detailed version
- Freeman v. Apple, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-07051
- Louis Stanton
- Aug. 9, 2023
Background
Lynne Freeman brought a single copyright-infringement claim against Apple, Inc. under the Copyright Act. She alleged that Apple’s display, distribution, and sales of books in the Crave series infringed her copyrighted book project. The opinion states that Freeman had three related copyright cases pending in the Southern District of New York involving the same underlying controversy and other parties, including the books’ author and retailers.
Apple moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York, or alternatively to pause the case while the related New York cases proceeded. Freeman opposed transfer but agreed that pausing the case would be appropriate.
Transfer Analysis
Section 1404(a) permits transfer when the case could have been brought in the proposed district and the convenience of the parties and witnesses, together with the interests of justice, favor transfer. The court first found that the case could have been brought in the Southern District of New York. Apple’s sales of the allegedly infringing electronic books in New York, along with its distribution and indemnity agreements with New York-based Macmillan, supported personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute. The court also found that exercising jurisdiction would comply with due-process requirements.
The court then weighed the relevant convenience factors. Freeman’s choice of forum received significant weight, 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 concluded that this factor alone did not require keeping the case in California.
Several factors favored transfer. Apple’s headquarters were in California, but the court found that the other relevant contacts—including the contracts concerning distribution of the books—were in New York. The court also found that access to evidence, litigation costs, and the ability to compel witnesses favored transfer because the case was closely related to the New York cases and involved the same underlying legal issue: whether Freeman’s copyright had been infringed. The remaining factors were neutral or did not weigh heavily against transfer.
Disposition
The motion to transfer was granted. Apple’s alternative request to stay the case was denied as moot. The court did not decide the underlying copyright-infringement claim.
Judge
The order is signed by Judge H. Orrick.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.