Righthaven LLC v. Newman
Filing
24
RESPONSE to 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), filed by Defendant Garry Newman. Replies due by 8/11/2011. (DiRaimondo, Anthony).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
BONE McALLESTER NORTON PLLC
STEPHEN J. ZRALEK (Admitted pro hac vice)
Nashville City Center
511 Union Street, Suite 1600
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Telephone: (615) 238-6305 // Facsimile: (615) 687-2763
Email: szralek@bonelaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant
GARRY NEWMAN
11
100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1600
LAS VEGAS, NV 89106
(702) 382-2101
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
9
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
KIRK B. LENHARD (Nevada Bar No. 1437)
ANTHONY J. DIRAIMONDO (Nevada Bar No. 10875)
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
Telephone: (702) 382-2101 // Facsimile: (702) 382-8135
Email: klenhard@bhfs.com
Email: adiraimondo@bhfs.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
13
RIGHTHAVEN, LLC,
14
Plaintiff,
15
16
v.
18
GARRY NEWMAN, an individual; and
FACEPUNCH STUDIOS LTD., a limited
company formed under the laws of Great
Britain,
19
Case No.: 2:10-cv-01762-JCM -PAL
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
AGAINST GARRY NEWMAN
Defendants.
17
20
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
21
22
Defendant Garry Newman (“Newman”) responds in opposition to the Motion for
23
Reconsideration that Plaintiff Righthaven, LLC (“Righthaven”) filed, seeking to set aside the
24
Court’s Order Dismissing the Complaint against Newman.1 Under Local Rule 7-2(b), the Court
25
properly granted Newman’s Motion to Dismiss based on Righthaven’s failure to file a response.
26
27
28
1
In its First Amended Complaint, Righthaven has added as a defendant Facepunch Studios Ltd., a
limited company formed under the laws of Great Britain. Righthaven has not served process on
Facepunch, and this Response is filed solely on behalf of Newman.
15141\1\1568903.1
1
Motion to Dismiss was due July 15, 2011. See Doc. 23 at p. 2. Righthaven asserts that it filed its
3
First Amended Complaint on July 15, 2011. Id. Righthaven also asserts that its First Amended
4
Complaint constitutes a response to the Motion to Dismiss. Both assertions are misleading. First,
5
the Court’s CM-ECF stamp across the top of Righthaven’s First Amended Complaint shows it
6
was not filed until July 16, 2011. See Doc. 21. Second, it was improper for Righthaven to file its
7
First Amended Complaint “as of right” under Rule 15(a), since the amended complaint is largely
8
based on new transactions and occurrences that took place after the filing of the original
9
complaint, namely Righthaven’s second amendment to the underlying Strategic Alliance
10
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
410 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 2200
DENVER, CO 80202-4432
As Righthaven admits in its Motion for Reconsideration, its response to Newman’s
2
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, A LAW CORPORATION
1
Agreement with Stephens Media, dated July 7, 2011, on which Righthaven claims to base its
11
standing.
12
pleading,” which required permission from the Court and notice to Newman prior to its filing,
13
under Rule 15(d).
Accordingly, Righthaven’s “amended complaint” is actually a “supplemental
14
“The disposition of a motion for reconsideration is within the district court's discretion.”
15
U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Scolari Warehouse Markets, Inc., 488 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1142 (D. Nev. 2007)
16
(denying motion for reconsideration and citing Bliesner v. Commc'n Workers of Am., 464 F.3d
17
910, 915 (9th Cir.2006)). Similarly, a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to its
18
local rules is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53
19
(9th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979)). “Only in
20
rare cases will [an appellate court] question the exercise of discretion in connection with the
21
application of local rules.” Id.
22
Righthaven’s failure to timely respond to Newman’s Motion to Dismiss was only one of
23
the grounds the Court considered in granting the dismissal. As explicitly stated in the Order, the
24
Court also weighed five factors: “(1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation;
25
(2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
26
policy favoring disposition of cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
27
sanctions.” See Order (Doc. 22) at 1 (quoting Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53). Reconsideration should be
28
denied given the Court’s consideration of the above factors, Righthaven’s failure to file any
15141\1\1568903.1
2
1
response to the Motion to Dismiss, the Court’s granting dismissal without prejudice, and
2
Righthaven’s improper filing of an Amended Complaint as of right when it was required to seek
3
permission.
4
Here there is no need for the Court to reconsider its Order granting Newman’s Motion to
Righthaven to file a new complaint against Newman. Righthaven failed to take advantage of the
7
opportunity to file an amendment as of right, and instead filed a supplemental pleading without
8
permission, as discussed above. Righthaven’s 21-day period under Rule 15(a)(1)(B) has since
9
expired. Nevertheless, contemporaneous with the filing of this Response, Newman is filing a
10
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
410 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 2200
DENVER, CO 80202-4432
Dismiss.
6
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, A LAW CORPORATION
5
Motion to Dismiss Righthaven’s improperly labeled “First Amended Complaint,” to address the
11
substantive flaws in the Complaint – the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal
12
jurisdiction.
13
The Order granted the dismissal without prejudice, which would have allowed
DATED this 1st day of August, 2011.
14
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP
15
By: /s/ Anthony J. DiRaimondo
Kirk B. Lenhard, Nevada Bar No. 1437
Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Nevada Bar No. 10875
100 N. City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106
klenhard@bhfs.com
adiraimondo@bhfs.com
(702) 382-2101
16
17
18
19
20
BONE McALLESTER NORTON PLLC
21
By: /s/ Stephen J. Zralek
Stephen J. Zralek, Admitted pro hac vice
511 Union Street, Suite 1600
Nashville, TN 37212
szralek@bonelaw.com
(615) 238-6305
22
23
24
25
Attorneys for Defendant
GARRY NEWMAN
26
27
28
15141\1\1568903.1
3
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.5(b), and Section IV of District of Nevada Electronic Filing
3
Procedures, I certify that I am an employee of BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK,
4
LLP, and that on the 1st day of August, 2011, the foregoing DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN
5
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
6
DISMISSING COMPLAINT AGAINST GARRY NEWMAN was served via electronic
7
service to the address shown below:
8
9
10
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
410 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 2200
DENVER, CO 80202-4432
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, A LAW CORPORATION
2
11
12
Shawn A. Mangano, Esq.
SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD.
9960 West Cheyenne Ave., Suite 170
Las Vegas, NV 89129-7701
shawn@manganolaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Righthaven, LLC
13
/s/ Paula Kay
an employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15141\1\1568903.1
4
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?