Righthaven LLC v. LEON et al

Filing 57

RESPONSE to 56 MOTION to Stay re 53 Judgment on Attorney Fees, 52 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, 54 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Temporary Stay Request, filed by Defendant Michael Leon. Replies due by 7/22/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of J. Malcolm DeVoy, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(DeVoy, James)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

J. Malcolm DeVoy IV (Nevada Bar No. 11950)
RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP
[e-mail]
7001 W. Charleston Boulevard, # 1043
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 305-437-7662
www.Randazza.com
Appearance Attorney for Defendant,
Michael Leon

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

RIGHTHAVEN, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company,
Plaintiff,

12
vs.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

MICHAEL LEON, an individual; DENISE
NICHOLS, an individual; and MEDBILLZ,
INC., a corporation of unknown origin,

Case No. 2:10-cv-01672
DECLARATION OF J. MALCOLM
DEVOY IV IN SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
STAY

Defendants.
DECLARATION OF J. MALCOLM DEVOY IV IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY STAY
I, J. MALCOLM DEVOY IV, hereby declare as follows:
1.

I am a duly licensed attorney in Nevada and a member of the Nevada bar in good

20

standing, attorney for the Randazza Legal Group law firm (alternatively, the “Firm”), and served

21

as counsel of record for Michael Leon in the April 20, 2011 hearing in this matter. This also

22

serves to correct the factually true but inaccurate statement that I, with Marc Randazza, were

23

counsel of record for Wayne Hoehn, in this matter -- Marc Randazza and I represent Hoehn, but

24

in a different case pending in this District. (See Doc. # 42-1.)

25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
7001 W Charleston Blvd
#1043
Las Vegas, NV 89117
[phone]

2.

On July 9, 2011, I moved the Court to enter a preliminary injunction against

Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) in the above-captioned case (Doc. # 54).
3.

On July 9, I sent a letter to Attorney Mangano, on behalf of Righthaven, stating the

circumstances upon which the Firm felt comfortable settling this matter, based on our prior
-1-

1
2

dealings with Righthaven and the delay, fruitlessness and misdirection entailed within them.
4.

On July 11, I again e-mailed Attorney Mangano regarding the status of Randazza

3

Legal Group’s judgment against Righthaven, as a hearing had been scheduled on the Firm’s

4

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 54).

5
6
7
8
9

5.

Attorney Mangano did not respond to either of these correspondences, and responded

by filing the instant Application for Stay (Doc. # 56).
6.

To date, Righthaven has not provided any written assurances that it will satisfy the

Firm’s judgment against it, or a proposed schedule for doing so.
7.

The experience of writing to Attorney Mangano and seeking to resolve the issue of

10

this Firm’s judgment (Doc. # 53) without the intervention of this Court is extraordinarily similar

11

to the experience of “negotiating” the initial attorney’s fee award with Righthaven – which

12

resulted in protracted motion practice (Doc. # 42).

13

8.

During that process, I would call and e-mail Attorney Mangano to discuss various

14

proposals the Firm would make, yet Righthaven never made firm offers to the Firm, in writing,

15

which could be used for good faith negotiations. At that time, the value of the fee award was

16

factors lower than the Firm’s current judgment of $3,815.00.

17

9.

I, and the Firm, was open to Righthaven donating the Court’s award of attorney’s

18

fees to a non-profit organization. As this would have necessitated Righthaven acknowledging

19

the Firm’s overtures in an effort to resolve that issue without motion practice (See id.).

20

10.

Because of the fruitlessness of those negotiations, and the track similar talks were

21

taking with Attorney Mangano regarding Righthaven’s payment of the Firm’s judgment, the

22

Firm’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 54) seemed like the sole prudent and effective

23

manner to make Righthaven take the Firm’s collection efforts seriously.

24

11.

To that end, it seems to have captured Attorney Mangano’s attention – the Motion

25

(id.) was filed shortly after 12:20 a.m. on July 9, 2011, and Attorney Mangano called me around

26

12:30 a.m. to discuss the issue for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes. At that time, no

27

resolution was reached, and no written assurances of payment have been issued to the firm

28

Randazza
Legal Group
7001 W Charleston Blvd
#1043
Las Vegas, NV 89117
[phone]

-2-

1
2

arising from that conversation.
12.

As Righthaven has stopped filing lawsuits against defendants it accuses of copyright

3

infringement, and all cases but one pending in the District of Colorado have been stayed, I have

4

serious doubts as to what, if any, revenue Righthaven is receiving at this point in time.

5
6

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: July 12, 2011

7
8

By:

9

J. Malcolm DeVoy IV

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Randazza
Legal Group
7001 W Charleston Blvd
#1043
Las Vegas, NV 89117
[phone]

/s/ J. Malcolm DeVoy IV

-3-