1st Media LLC v. doPi Karaoke, Inc. et al

Filing 298

ORDER Granting 295 Motion to Reopen Case and to Hold a Status and Scheduling Conference. Status Conference set for 4/18/2013 10:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6A before Judge James C. Mahan. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/27/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
1st MEDIA, LLC,

8
9

2:07-CV-1589 JCM (NJK )

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11

doPi KARAOKE, INC., et al.,

12
Defendants.

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is plaintiff 1st Media LLC’s motion to reopen the case and hold

16

a status and scheduling conference. (Doc. # 295). Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment of

17

America Inc. (“SCEA”) responded (doc. # 296), and plaintiff replied (doc. # 297).

18

I.

19
20

Procedural History
On November 29, 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint for patent infringement. (Doc. # 1). On

April 26, 2010, the court entered judgment in favor of defendants. (Doc. # 277).

21

On May 10, 2010, plaintiff gave notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals

22

Federal Circuit. (Doc. # 280). On September 17, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion

23

reversing the court’s judgment. (Doc. # 290). On December 19, 2012, the court entered an order

24

on mandate. (Doc. # 293).

25

On February 27, 2013, plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen case and to hold a status

26

and scheduling conference. (Doc. # 295). On March 8, 2013, defendants SCEA, Harmonix Music

27

Systems, Inc. and Viacom, Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

United States, no. 12-1086. (Doc. # 296, 7).

2

II.

Discussion

3

Both plaintiff and defendant do not oppose reopening this case and holding a status and

4

scheduling conference. Defendant SCEA, however, requests a stay of these proceedings and that a

5

conference be set approximately 90 days out or once a decision is rendered in the Supreme Court

6

regarding the pending certiorari petition. Defendant SCEA’s request for entry of a stay based on its

7

belief that the petition for certiorari presents a substantial question and that there is good cause for

8

a stay.

9

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to

10

control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299

11

U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests

12

which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant

13

Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.

14

1962)). Traditionally, the decision to grant a stay pending review requires “consideration of four

15

factors: ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the

16

merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of

17

the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the

18

public interest lies.’” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481

19

U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).

20

Despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, this court does not find that this case presents

21

the circumstances necessary to warrant staying this patent infringement case which has been pending

22

over five years. Defendants have neither sought a stay of the mandate under Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)

23

nor a stay from the Supreme Court under Supreme Court Rule 23. The court does not find entry of

24

a stay appropriate at this time.1

25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

The court notes that the likelihood that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari is unlikely. The Supreme Court
receives approximately 10,000 petitions for certiorari each year and hears only about 75–80 cases. Frequently Asked
Questions, Supreme Court of the United States, http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx# faqgi9 (last visited March 27,
2013).

-2-

1

III.

Conclusion

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to

4
5
6
7

reopen the case (doc. # 295) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that status and scheduling conference shall be held on April
18, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.
DATED March 27, 2013.

8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-