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).

Download PDF
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?