Updates on a Few More Cases that Have Quietly Settled
Otto v. Edina School District
On October 10, 2022, we published a post about an ongoing case between Michael James Otto (“Otto”) and Minnesota Independent School District No. 273 (the “District”). At that time, the District had filed its counterclaim, denying Otto’s allegations. The District argued that they owned the copyright to the logo concerned in the litigation because the logo had been created as a work for hire and that Otto had signed a contract granting the District the rights to use the logo.
Following this, Otto moved to dismiss the District’s counterclaims. The court then issued an order requiring the parties to engage in settlement discussions and set deadlines for the conferences. In August 2022, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement, stating that they were close to reaching an agreement, and requested that the court extend the deadlines.
In May 2023, Otto and the District filed their final Stipulation of Dismissal, formally settling the long-standing case.
MMAS v. Kings College London
On March 21, 2022, we reported on a case involving a dispute between MMAS Research and Dr. Donald E. Morisky ("MMAS") and King’s College London ("King’s College") over the use of a medical assessment developed by MMAS to assist patients with medication adherence. MMAS alleged that King’s College misused the assessment in violation of the existing license agreement.
The case progressed with both parties filing answers and motions until October 2022, when MMAS filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice.
Nguyen v. Corporation of Western Governors University
Another case due for an update is WGU v. Nguyen. In May 2022, we first published a post about this case, in which a former employee of Western Governors University ("WGU"), Anhvu C. Nguyen ("Nguyen"), alleged that he suffered racial discrimination in the performance of his duties and that WGU improperly retained intellectual property related to a training program he developed.
In April 2022, WGU filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal, asking the court to dismiss several of Nguyen’s claims. WGU first argued that Nguyen failed to state a claim in multiple areas, including his failure to establish a causal connection between his alleged discrimination and termination, as there was an eight-month gap between the two events. For the remaining allegations, WGU contended that Nguyen’s claims were legally deficient—either preempted by federal law or failing to meet legal standards of Utah (where the case was filed).
Six days later, Nguyen and WGU filed a joint Motion to Stay agreeing on scheduling a mediation meeting. As a result, the court issued a stay, finding that this was warranted because the benefits of reaching a settlement outweighed the costs of continuing litigation. The court’s reasoning proved correct, as on July 8, 2022, WGU and Nguyen entered a Stipulation of Dismissal, settling the case with prejudice, with each party responsible for their own attorneys' costs.
Bell v. Board of Education, Basehor-Linwood USD 458
Our final update concerns another case involving Keith Bell ("Bell") that we last reported on in June of 2022. In a recent update on a similar case filed by Bell, we reported that the court dismissed Bell’s case on fair use grounds and for failure to state a claim. This time, in Bell v. Board of Education Basehor-Linwood USD 458, Bell chose to settle with the Board of Education (the "Board"), recognizing that the claims his claims would likely be barred by the statute of limitations. Bell's claims centered on social media uses of content from his Winning isn't Normal book.
After the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss for improper service of process, the court denied the Board’s motion but granted Bell an extension to re-file his response. The court's Order on the motion noted that Bell’s initial response "fail[ed] to substantively respond to any of [the] arguments" raised by the Board (6). Furthermore, the court warned Bell of the potential consequences, stating that even though he was a pro se litigant, he was not excused from making substantive arguments to preserve his claim.
The court also highlighted that Bell was an "unusual pro se plaintiff" due to his extensive litigation history (8). Since 2006, Bell had filed over 26 copyright infringement cases in which he has settled at least 90 related claims. Given this history, the court stated that it expected him to have developed a familiarity with procedural rules by this point.
The turning point in the case, however, was the court’s observation that granting Bell additional time to respond could actually benefit the Board. The court noted that extending the deadline would not necessarily prejudice the defendant, but could, in fact, work in their favor, as Bell’s claim was at risk of being barred by the statute of limitations.
Three months after the court’s order, Bell and the Board agreed to settle the case, with Bell filing a Notice of Settlement on March 3, 2023. As part of the settlement, each party agreed to pay their own legal fees, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.