Baronius Press Ltd v. Faithlife Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01635
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 BARONIUS PRESS LTD, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01635-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON RULE 11 MOTION FOR v. SANCTIONS 13 FAITHLIFE CORPORATION, 14 Defendant. 15

17 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Faithlife Corporation’s (“Faithlife”) Rule 11 18 Motion for Sanctions. Dkt. No. 74. Having reviewed Plaintiff Baronius Press Ltd.’s (“Baronius”) 19 opposition (Dkt. No. 78), Defendant’s reply (Dkt. No. 81), and the relevant record, and having 20 held oral argument (Dkt. No. 87), the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 A. Preliminary Note on the Works at Issue 23 Relevant to this motion, this case concerns claims of copyright infringement and 24 violations of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. §§ 1202 et seq., related 1 to “two (2) copyright-protected works, Grundriss der katholischen Dogmatik (‘Grundriss’) and 2 the English translation Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (‘Fundamentals’).” Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 1. 3 The “Title” of both the First and Third Claims for Relief in the Second Amended Verified 4 Complaint (“SAVC”) was “Grundriss der katholischen Dogmatik,” while the substantive

5 allegations referenced “Grundriss English Edition.” See Dkt. No. 63 at 5–6. Due to the 6 ambiguity, the Court in its prior orders referred to three written works: 7 (1) A German-language religious text titled Grundriss der katholischen Dogmatik by 8 Ludwig Ott, originally published in 1952. This text is referred to in the SAVC and 9 by the Court as “Grundriss.” See Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 63 at 2. 10 (2) An English-language translation of Grundriss called Fundamentals of Catholic 11 Dogma authored by Dr. Patrick Lynch, originally published in 1955. This text is 12 referred to in the SAVC as “Fundamentals” (Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 1), but to avoid 13 confusion (because Plaintiff’s revised English-language edition is also entitled 14 Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma), the Court refers to this text as the “Lynch

15 Translation” (see Dkt. No. 63 at 2). 16 (3) A revised English-language translation of Grundriss produced and published by 17 Plaintiff in 2018, which is also entitled Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. The 18 Court refers to this text as the “Revised Translation” (see Dkt. No. 63 at 2), 19 though the Court has also referred to this text as the “Baronius Edition” 20 previously (see Dkt. No. 71). 21 In its prior orders, the Court relied on the definitions given in the SAVC. The SAVC 22 defines the term “Grundriss” as the underlying German-language original work titled Grundriss 23 der katholischen Dogmatik. Dkt. No. 48 ¶¶ 1, 28. The SAVC also defined the term

24 1 “Fundamentals” as “the English translation Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” that was 2 commissioned by Mercier Press and translated by Dr. Patrick Lynch.1 Id. ¶¶ 1, 36. 3 With regard to the term “Grundriss English Edition,” Plaintiff defined it in the SAVC as 4 “an English-language edition of Grundriss.” Id. ¶ 32 (emphasis added). The SAVC further

5 explains the claim with regard to Grundriss English Edition as follows: “Plaintiff is, and has 6 been since 2009, the exclusive licensee of the rights to reproduce, adapt and distribute an 7 English-language edition of the German-language original work Grundriss (“Grundriss English 8 Edition”). Id. ¶¶ 92, 118 (emphases added). Plaintiff also alleged that “[i]n 2009, Plaintiff signed 9 an agreement with Nova and obtained the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, and distribute 10 Grundriss English Edition” (id. ¶ 34), citing to an exhibit that showed Plaintiff had been given 11 three years from the date of the agreement to “prepare an English translation” of Grundriss, 12 which it could then publish for a set number of years under specified conditions. Dkt. No. 38-3 at 13 13–14. In April 2018, Plaintiff published the fully revised and updated version: the Revised 14 Translation. Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 44.

15 Other than the Lynch Translation and the 2018 revised and updated edition (the Revised 16 Translation), no other English translation is mentioned in the SAVC. See generally id. In its 17 opposition to the instant motion, Plaintiff clarifies that because both the Lynch Translation and 18 the Revised Translation are derivatives of Grundriss, they both fall under the definition of 19 Grundriss English Edition. Dkt. No. 78 at 3–4. 20 21 22 1 While Plaintiff asserts in the Preliminary Statement of the SAVC that Defendant infringed the copyright of Grundriss between the years of 2011 and 2013 (id. ¶ 2), the actual allegations in the SAVC assert only an 23 infringement of the Lynch Translation. Id. ¶ 45. Counsel for Plaintiff also confirmed at oral argument that at issue in this case is only Defendant’s publication of 75 copies of the Lynch Translation in 2019 and the alleged false 24 copyright management information provided in relation to the sales during 2019. See Dkt. No. 48 ¶¶ 2–3. 1 B. Brief Factual Background 2 The Court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case. See Dkt. No. 63 at 2–4. 3 However, the Court briefly states that in 2010, Plaintiff entered into a Copyright Assignment 4 Agreement with Mercier Press to acquire all rights to the Lynch Translation. Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 40;

5 Dkt. No. 48-4 at 8. For a short time in 2019, Defendant made the Lynch Translation available 6 through its online forum. Dkt. No. 48 ¶¶ 49–55. In particular, Defendant sold 75 copies of the 7 Lynch Translation between March and June 2019. Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff confronted Defendant (id. 8 ¶¶ 60–70), and this lawsuit followed. 9 C. Procedural Background 10 Plaintiff filed its SAVC on April 20, 2023. In the SAVC, Plaintiff asserts four causes of 11 action, which can be summarized as: 12 (1) First Claim for Relief: Infringement of Plaintiff’s alleged ownership rights to an 13 English-language edition of the German-language original work Grundriss arising 14 from its contractual relationship with publisher Nova & Vetera e.K. (“Nova”);

15 (2) Second Claim for Relief: Infringement of Plaintiff’s alleged ownership rights to 16 the Lynch Translation arising from an assignment of copyright it received from 17 Irish publisher Mercier Press; 18 (3) Third Claim for Relief: Violation of the DMCA related to the former infringement 19 (of Plaintiff’s alleged ownership rights to an English-language edition of the 20 German-language original work Grundriss); and 21 (4) Fourth Claim for Relief: Violation of the DMCA related to the latter infringement 22 (of Plaintiff’s alleged ownership rights to the Lynch Translation). 23 See Dkt. No. 48 ¶¶ 90–149.

24 1 On January 31, 2024, the Court issued an order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the 2 SAVC. Dkt. No. 63. In its order, the Court determined that Plaintiff had “fail[ed] to plead a 3 plausible claim for ownership of any rights in Grundriss.” Id. at 6. The Court found that Plaintiff 4 “Baronius was explicitly granted an exclusive license to ‘reproduce, adapt, and distribute’ a

5 translated version of Grundriss only, i.e., the Revised Translation.” Id. at 7 (citing Dkt. No. 59 at 6 5; Dkt. No. 48-3 at 13–25). Nonetheless, the Court also found that because Plaintiff specifically 7 alleged that Defendant “reproduced and distributed [the Revised Translation], and/or a 8 substantially similar reproduction thereof,” Plaintiff plausibly asserted its infringement claim 9 related to Plaintiff’s exclusive license to publish the Revised Translation. Dkt. No. 63 at 8 10 (quoting Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 96). Because its infringement claim related to the Revised Translation 11 survived the motion to dismiss, so did Plaintiff’s DMCA claim related to the Revised 12 Translation. Id. at 11–12. 13 Following the Court’s order, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 68. The Court 14 denied Plaintiff’s motion, reasserting its prior holding that “Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient

15 facts to assert any enforceable ownership rights in the original German-language work, 16 Grundriss, and is instead limited to pursuing its claim based on an exclusive license to produce 17 and publish a new revised English-language translation, the [Revised Translation].” Dkt. No. 71 18 at 3. 19 On June 5, 2024, the Parties filed a joint stipulation asserting that “Plaintiff does not 20 allege that Defendant published the ‘Revised Translation.’” Dkt. No. 73. 21 Defendant brings the instant motion for sanctions, which seeks dismissal of Claims 1 and 22 3 of the SAVC. Dkt. No. 74. Defendant argues that based on the Court’s prior order and the 23 Parties’ stipulation, these claims “have no reasonable factual basis under Rule 11(b)(3) because

24 1 [Plaintiff] has repudiated the factual allegations that formed the sole basis for the Court denying 2 [Defendant’s] prior motion to dismiss these claims.” Id. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 A court may impose sanctions on a party or its counsel by three primary means:

5 (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which applies to signed, written filings; (2) 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1927, which penalizes unreasonable and vexatious multiplicity of proceedings; and (3) the 7 inherent power of the court. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). 8 “Filing a complaint in federal court is no trifling undertaking.” Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 9 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002). “An attorney’s signature on a complaint is tantamount to a 10 warranty that the complaint is well grounded in fact and ‘existing law’ . . . and that it is not filed 11 for an improper purpose.” Id. Rule 11 provides, in pertinent part: 12 By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an 13 attorney or unrepresented party is certifying to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an 14 inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . 15 (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous 16 argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; 17 (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have 18 evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 19 opportunity for further investigation or discovery[.] Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). “The attorney has a duty prior to filing a complaint not only to conduct a 20 reasonable factual investigation, but also to perform adequate legal research that confirms 21 whether the theoretical underpinnings of the complaint are ‘warranted by existing law or a good 22 faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.’” Christian, 286 F.3d at 23 1127 (quoting Golden Eagle Distrib. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 1537 (9th Cir. 24 1 1986)). “One of the fundamental purposes of Rule 11 is to ‘reduce frivolous claims, defenses or 2 motions and to deter costly meritless maneuvers, . . . thereby avoiding delay and unnecessary 3 expense in litigation.’” Id. (cleaned up) (quoting Golden Eagle, 801 F.2d at 1536). A finding of 4 significant delay or expense is not required under Rule 11. Id.

5 Under its inherent authority, a court may also impose sanctions, including attorneys’ fees, 6 for “willful disobedience of a court order . . . or when the losing party has acted in bad faith, 7 vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Fink, 239 F.3d at 991 (quoting Roadway 8 Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980)); see also In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig., 78 9 F.3d at 436 (holding that a specific finding of bad faith is required to impose sanctions under a 10 court’s inherent powers). 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 A. Whether Claims 1 and 3 are Legally or Factually Baseless 13 1. Claim 1: Copyright Infringement Claim Related to Grundriss and Grundriss English Edition 14 Various arguments by Plaintiff as to why its claim for copyright infringement related to 15 Grundriss and Grundriss English Edition should survive have been addressed by the Court in 16 prior orders. Accordingly, the Court will walk through the relevant allegations, its prior orders, 17 and Plaintiff’s current argument. 18 a. SAVC Allegations and the Court’s Order on Motion to Dismiss 19 The SAVC alleges in relevant part that “Plaintiff is, and has been since 2009, the 20 exclusive licensee of the rights to reproduce, adapt and distribute an English-language edition of 21 the German-language original work Grundriss (‘Grundriss English Edition’).” Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 92. 22 The “Grundriss English Edition” is articulated in the SAVC as “the rights to an English- 23 language edition of Grundriss.” Id. ¶ 32. However, because the SAVC also appeared to allege an 24 1 ownership right to original German-language Grundriss work itself (see Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 77), the 2 Court, in its order on the motion to dismiss, discussed Plaintiff’s claim of ownership rights in 3 Grundriss in connection with its first claim for copyright infringement. See Dkt. No. 63 at 6. 4 In its order, the Court found that “[p]er its agreement with Nova, Baronius describes itself

5 as ‘the exclusive licensee of the exclusive right to publish’ a new English-language translation of 6 Grundriss.” Dkt. No. 63 at 7 (quoting Dkt. No. 59 at 5). The Court thus found, “Plaintiff is not 7 the U.S. copyright holder of Grundriss, but instead owns an exclusive license to produce and 8 distribute a separate translated work based upon the original”—i.e., the Revised Translation. Id. 9 Therefore, and to clear up any confusion, the Section of the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss 10 titled “Infringement of the Grundriss Copyright” only refers to “the original Grundriss work”— 11 i.e., the German-language original work Grundriss. Dkt. No. 63 at 8. 12 Because the SAVC alleged that “Defendant willfully, intentionally and purposefully 13 reproduced and distributed Grundriss English Edition, and/or a substantially similar reproduction 14 thereof” (Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 96), the Court found that Plaintiff’s first claim for copyright infringement

15 survived the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 63 at 8 (“Baronius has made sufficient factual 16 allegations of infringement of its exclusive license to publish the Revised Translation. 17 Specifically, Baronius alleges that Faithlife ‘reproduced and distributed [the Revised 18 Translation], and/or a substantially similar reproduction thereof.’” (quoting Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 96)). 19 But after the Court’s order, the Parties stipulated that “Plaintiff does not allege that 20 Defendant published the ‘Revised Translation.’” Dkt. No. 73 at 2. Thus, the factual allegation on 21 which the Court premised the survival of Plaintiff’s first claim of copyright infringement—that 22 Defendant had reproduced and distributed the Revised Translation—has now been repudiated by 23 Plaintiff.

24 1 b. Plaintiff’s Argument in Opposition to Sanctions 2 Turning now to Plaintiff’s current argument, Plaintiff attempts to relitigate the scope of 3 its license agreement with Nova. The Court will address this argument and will then turn to an 4 assessment of whether there is a legal or factual basis for Plaintiff’s first claim.

5 (1) The Scope of Plaintiff’s License Agreement with Nova 6 Plaintiff argues that the scope of its license agreement between itself and Nova provided 7 Plaintiff with the rights to all English-language translations of Grundriss. See Dkt. No. 78 at 5, 8. 8 Plaintiff contends that “Plaintiff’s exclusive license with Nova provides Plaintiff with the 9 exclusive rights to any and all English translation derivatives of Grundriss, including the right to 10 police and prevent others from reproducing and coping [sic] any English translation of 11 Grundriss, like Plaintiff is doing in this lawsuit.” Id. at 5. The Court previously found—after 12 reviewing the contract between Plaintiff and Nova—that Plaintiff “was explicitly granted an 13 exclusive license to ‘reproduce, adapt, and distribute’ a translated version of Grundriss only, 14 i.e., the Revised Translation.” Dkt. No. 73 at 7 (citing Dkt. No. 59 at 5; Dkt. No. 48-3 at 13–25).

15 The Court did not find that Plaintiff was granted the rights to all English-language translations of 16 Grundriss; it found that Plaintiff was granted the right to an English-language translation of 17 Grundriss: the Revised Translation. See id. 18 However, Plaintiff never explicitly argued that its term Grundriss English Edition 19 encompassed both the Revised Translation as well as additional English translations of 20 Grundriss (including the Lynch Translation, which Plaintiff notably defined separately in the 21 SAVC), or that its first and third claims were premised in part on its allegations that Defendant 22 had published the Lynch Translation. The Court thus did not consider such arguments. 23 While Plaintiff is wrong that it would have been incorrect for the Court to determine the

24 scope of Plaintiff’s contract with Nova at the motion to dismiss stage—it is appropriate on a 1 motion to dismiss to consider documents attached to the complaint, and Plaintiff attached a 2 translated version of its contract with Nova to the SAVC—the Court did not have the 3 opportunity to fully hear both Parties on the issue of whether Plaintiff’s contract with Nova 4 encompassed rights to the Lynch Translation. See Atkinson v. Aaron’s LLC, No. C23-1742, 2024

5 WL 2133358, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2024) (“A court may, however, consider certain 6 materials—documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the 7 complaint, or matters of judicial notice—without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion 8 for summary judgment.” (quoting United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003))). 9 While Plaintiff knew that the scope of its copyright was at issue on the motion to dismiss (see 10 Dkt. No. 59 at 5–6) and should have offered this argument and any relevant additional 11 information at that stage (and arguably should have included some of the information in the 12 SAVC), this does not appear to be an oversight made in bad faith. See Warren v. Fox Family 13 Worldwide, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1064 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (noting that plaintiff could have 14 proffered evidence supporting his interpretation of the contract); Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. E.ON

15 AG, Nos. C05-2388, C05-5154, 2006 WL 8450450, at *7 n.5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2006) 16 (interpreting contract with German choice-of-law provision where parties had “not pointed to 17 any doctrine or provision of German contract law that would require a different interpretation”). 18 (2) Whether Claim 1 is Legally or Factually Baseless Following the Parties’ Stipulation 19 In light of its prior holdings and the Parties’ stipulation, the Court must now determine if 20 there remains any basis for Plaintiff’s first claim. 21 In the SAVC, Plaintiff defined the term “Grundriss English Edition” as “an English- 22 language edition of the German-language original work Grundriss” to which Plaintiff had been 23 granted the exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, and distribute. Dkt. No. 48 ¶ 92. The Court 24 1 previously understood that, under the definition in Paragraph 92 of the SAVC, “Grundriss 2 English Edition” held the same definition as “the Revised Translation” as the term was used in 3 the Court’s orders. Compare id., with Dkt. No. 63 at 3 (“Nova then contracted with Baronius to 4 prepare and publish a newly revised English-language edition (‘Revised Translation’), which

5 was eventually published in 2018.”). While Plaintiff’s use of a singular term (“an . . . edition”) 6 for what the Court now understands to capture multiple English translations of Grundriss is, to 7 say the least, a confusing choice on Plaintiff’s part, the Court now understands the breadth of 8 Plaintiff’s term to be broader than originally understood. 9 Plaintiff alleged that Defendant “willfully, intentionally and purposefully reproduced and 10 distributed Grundriss English Edition, and/or a substantially similar reproduction thereof, in the 11 U.S. in electronic/digital format . . . in violation of Section 501 of the Copyright Act” in support 12 of its first claim for relief. Id. ¶ 96. Plaintiff argues that “[b]ecause both ‘the Lynch Translation’ 13 and ‘the Revised Translation’ are derivatives of Grundriss, they both fall under the definition of 14 Grundriss English Edition.” Dkt. No. 78 ay 6. Although the Court again notes that the

15 terminology in Plaintiff’s original complaint does not clearly allege that this claim is premised on 16 Defendant’s publication of the Lynch Translation, it also does not explicitly exclude the Lynch 17 Translation from this claim. 18 Further, Defendant may be successful on a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 19 first and third claims. On a motion for sanctions, however, the Court only looks to whether any 20 legal or factual basis exists to maintain the claim. The Court finds that there does appear to be a 21 factual basis to maintain Plaintiff’s first and third claims on the grounds that Defendant 22 published the Lynch Translation—even though Plaintiff did not clearly allege such grounds in its 23 complaint, in opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, or on its own motion for

24 1 reconsideration, and it is unclear what, if any, additional remedy Plaintiff may gain from these 2 claims. 3 2. Claim 3: DMCA Claim Related to Grundriss English Edition 4 Because Plaintiff’s DMCA claim is premised by its claim of copyright infringement of

5 Plaintiff’s license to the Grundriss English Edition, see 17 U.S.C. § 1203(a), its DMCA claim 6 related to Grundriss English Edition also survives. 7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for sanctions. 9 Dated this 4th day of February 2025. 10 A 11 Tana Lin United States District Judge 12

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24