IvyMedia Corp. v. iLIKEBUS, Inc.
233 F. Supp. 3d 228
D. Mass.2017Background
- IvyMedia (Mass. corp.) operates web ticketing platforms (IvyMedia.com since 2002; GotoBus.com since 2006) and sued competitors for copyright infringement and related claims in May 2015.
- Defendants are iLIKEBUS, Inc. and its principals (Zou and Wei), operators of iLIKEBUS.com.
- This Court previously dismissed all claims except the copyright infringement claim; a scheduling conference set a deadline of January 31, 2016 for amended pleadings.
- After unsuccessful arbitration in September 2016, IvyMedia sought to amend its complaint to add a 2005 copyright registration number and a 2015 supplemental registration number.
- Defendants opposed the amendment and moved to strike IvyMedia’s reply brief (arguing leave was required). The Court addressed the motion to amend and the motion to strike; a summary-judgment motion by defendants was pending but not resolved in this order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to amend after scheduling deadline (good cause under Rule 16(b)) | Delay was reasonable and diligent: plaintiff waited for arbitration and accommodated defense counsel’s requests; defendants already knew of the registrations. | Plaintiff failed to show good cause and amendment would prejudice defendants. | Amendment allowed: plaintiff showed diligence and lack of prejudice; court will adjust schedule. |
| Prejudice from adding registration/supplemental registration | Addition is minor, doesn’t change the sole remaining copyright claim, and promotes efficient resolution of both registrations in one case. | Amendment would prejudice defendants. | No prejudice: counsel were aware of registrations; allowing amendment is efficient and not unfair. |
| Motion to strike plaintiff’s reply for lack of leave (local rule) | Reply should not be struck; both parties filed replies without leave and striking is unnecessary. | Reply brief was filed without leave in violation of local rule; sanction/strike warranted. | Motion to strike denied; parties cautioned to seek leave before filing replies in future. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connell v. Hyatt Hotels of Puerto Rico, 357 F.3d 152 (1st Cir. 2004) (establishes Rule 16(b) good-cause standard and factors: diligence and prejudice)
- Jones v. Winnepesaukee Real, 990 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993) (trial courts have broad case-management discretion)
- Villanueva v. United States, 662 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2011) (discusses amendment impacts where core claim remains unchanged)
- Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Surgical Sols., Inc., 353 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Mass. 2004) (court may consider efficiency and docket management when deciding motions to amend)