Righthaven LLC v. Newman

Filing 23

Emergency MOTION for District Judge to Reconsider Order re 21 Amended Complaint, 22 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,, Add and Terminate Parties, Terminate Deadlines/Hearings On Shortened Time Pursuant to LR 6-1(a) by Plaintiff Righthaven LLC. Responses due by 8/8/2011. (Mangano, Shawn)

1
2
3
4
5
6

SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6730
[e-mail]
SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD.
9960 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170
Las Vegas, Nevada 89129-7701
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Righthaven LLC

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11

RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01762-JCM-PAL
PLAINTIFF RIGHTHAVEN LLC’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
GARRY NEWMAN’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

Plaintiff,
v.
GARRY NEWMAN, an individual; and
FACEPUNCH STUDIOS LTD., a limited
company formed under the laws of Great
Britain,

ON SHORTENED TIME PURSUANT TO
LR 6-1(a)

Defendants.

18
19

Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) hereby moves on shortened time pursuant to LR 6-1(a)

20

for reconsideration of the July 22, 2011 Court’s Order (Doc. # 22) granting Defendant Garry

21

Newman’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. # 19, the “Motion”).

22
23
24
25

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Righthaven asks the Court to reconsider its July 22nd Order, which granted Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Doc. # 22.) The July 22nd Order was entered by the
Court based on its belief that Righthaven had failed file a timely response pursuant to LR 7-2(b)

26
27
28

1

1

to Defendant’s Motion. (Id. at 1.) Righthaven’s response to Defendant’s Motion was due on July

2

15, 2011. (Doc. # 19.)

3

After a review of the pleadings on file in the case and after calculating the appropriate

4

time period for doing so, Righthaven elected to file a First Amended Complaint as a matter of

5

right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). (Doc. # 21.) Righthaven’s First

6

Amended Complaint was filed on July 15th, although it could have done so as a matter of right

7

some days later. (Id.) When filing the Amended Complaint, however, the Court’s CM/ECF

8

system did not permit submission to be linked to any other document on file in the case except

9

for the original Complaint. (Doc. # 1.) Apparently the CM/ECF system did not provide a there

10

means to link the First Amended Complaint to Defendant’s Motion, which would have advised

11

the Court of the manner in that Righthaven responded. Accordingly, Righthaven respectfully

12

requests the Court reconsider its July 22nd Order.

13

Reconsideration of a court order requires: (1) a valid reason for revisiting the prior order;

14

and (2) facts or law of a strongly convincing nature so as to warrant reversal of the prior

15

decision. Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003).

16

Here, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion under the assumption that a timely response

17

had not been filed pursuant to LR 7-2(b). This was not the case. In fact, Righthaven file a

18

timely response to the Motion by submitting its First Amended Complaint on July 15, 2011

19

(Doc. # 21), which was the calendared response date for the Motion. Righthaven’s First

20

Amended Complaint was filed as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

21

15(a). As such, no action was required by the Court to approve this filing. Substantively, the

22

First Amended Complaint amplifies certain allegations relevant to Righthaven’s ownership of

23

the copyrighted work at issue in this case. Moreover, the First Amended Complaint also

24

amplifies personal jurisdiction allegations asserted against Defendant. Accordingly, the First

25

Amended Complaint clearly addresses the subject matter of Defendant’s Motion, thereby

26
27
28

2

1

rendering it moot or otherwise requiring it to be amended and refilled in response to the newly

2

filed Complaint.

3

In conclusion, Righthaven asks for reconsideration based on the foregoing facts and

4

circumstances. A response to Defendant’s Motion was filed timely in compliance with LR 7-

5

2(b) through the submission of the First Amended Complaint. As a result, Righthaven believes

6

reconsideration is warranted.

7

Dated this 22nd day of July, 2011.
SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD.

8

By: /s/ Shawn A. Mangano, Esq.
SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6730
[e-mail]
9960 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170
Las Vegas, Nevada 89129-7701
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

9
10
11
12
13

Attorney for Plaintiff Righthaven LLC

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b), I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of

3

July, 2011, I caused PLAINTIFF RIGHTHAVEN LLC’S MOTION FOR

4

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GARRY NEWMAN’S

5

MOTION TO DISMISS ON SHORTENED TIME PURSUANT TO LR 6-1(a) to be served by

6

the Court’s CM/ECF system.

7

By:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

/s/ Shawn A. Mangano
Shawn A. Mangano, Esq.
SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD.