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)

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
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
7001 W. Charleston Boulevard, # 1043
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: [phone]
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-