Righthaven LLC v. Vote For The Worst, LLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER ON STIPULATION Granting 44 Stipulation to Admit Evidence Relating to 33 Pending Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 6/1/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

Download PDF
Case 2:10-cv-01045-KJD -GWF Document 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 2 Marc J. Randazza (Admitted pro hac vice) J. Malcolm DeVoy IV (Nevada Bar No. 11950) RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP mjr@Randazza.com jmd@Randazza.com 7001 W. Charleston Boulevard, # 1043 Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: 888-667-1113 Facsimile: 305-437-7662 Attorneys for Defendants, Vote for the Worst LLC, Nathan E. Palmer and David J. Della Terza 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 13 RIGHTHAVEN, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 vs. VOTE FOR THE WORST, LLC, an Utah limited-liability company; NATHAN E. PALMER, an individual; and DAVID J. DELLA TERZA, an individual, Defendants. Case No. 2:10-cv-01045-KJD-RJJ PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE RELATING TO PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE RELATING TO PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 21 THE COURT, having considered the parties’ stipulation to admit new evidence (Doc. # 22 44) with respect to the pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 33) and related briefing (Docs. # 40, 23 43), hereby GRANTS the parties’ stipulation to admit the evidence attached as Exhibit A to their 24 Stipulation (Doc. # 44-1), Sections 3.2 and 19.4 of Righthaven LLC’s Operating Agreement. 25 This evidence is already on record in another case pending in this District, Righthaven 26 LLC v. DiBiase, Case No. 2:10-cv-01343 (Doc. # 51) (D. Nev. Apr. 17, 2011). As such, it is 27 judicially noticeable. The timing of the parties’ stipulation and this Court’s Order is proper 28 -1- Case 2:10-cv-01045-KJD -GWF Document 45 Filed 05/27/11 Page 2 of 2 1 because this relevant evidence was not available to the Defendants at the time their Motion to 2 Dismiss (Doc. # 33) was filed. As the parties have not yet engaged in formal discovery pending 3 the resolution of this Motion to Dismiss, Defendants did not have access to this evidence before 4 it was placed on the public record in DiBiase. 5 Agreement put before this Court are relevant to proving the parties’ contentions as to the proper 6 ownership of the copyright underlying this litigation. Moreover, the sections of the Operating 7 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the 8 evidence submitted by the parties as Exhibit A to their Stipulation (Doc. # 44) is ADMITTED 9 and will be considered by the Court in conjunction with the Defendants’ pending Motion to 10 Dismiss and related briefing. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED: 13 14 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DATED: 6/1/11 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?