Caesars World, Inc. v. July et al
Filing
44
MOTION to Dismiss Certain Counterclaims Pursuant to FRCP 12(B)(6) by Defendants Marcel July, Octavius Tower LLC. Responses due by 12/15/2011. (Sanft, Michael)
1
2
3
4
5
MICHAEL W. SANFT, ESQ.
Nevada Bar. No. 8245
SANFT LAW GROUP
520 South Fourth
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 384-5563
Attorneys for Defendants
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
CAESAR’S WORLD, INC., a Florida
corporation,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
MARCEL JULY, an individual; and
OCTAVIUS TOWER, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company,
14
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-0536 GMN-PAL
DEFENDANT MARCEL JULY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN
COUNTERCLAIMS PURSUANT TO
R.CIV.P. 12(B)(6)
Defendant.
15
16
Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), Defendant Marcel July, by and through undersigned
17
18
counsel, herewith moves this Honorable Court to enter orders dismissing certain portions of Mr.
19
July’s Counterclaim against the Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant requests a dismissal of Count
20
Two of his Counterclaim for Dilution of Trademark or Tradename and further those portions of
21
County One requesting monetary damages arising from Infringement. This Motion is supported
22
by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, incorporated by reference herein.
23
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
24
25
26
A.
FACTUAL BACK GROUND
27
This matter arises from alleged infringement of Caesar’s World, Inc. (hereafter
28
“Caesar’s”), against the trademark or tradename “Octavius Tower,” owned by Marcel July and
-1-
1
2
registered in his name with the United State Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In this
3
matter, Plaintiff Caesar’s World, Inc. has stated various claims against Mr. July, to which Mr.
4
July has responded and presented his own Counterclaim against the Plaintiff. In Mr. July’s
5
Counterclaim, the Defendant lists two counts, one for Infringement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114,
6
1116, and 1117 and a second for Dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125.
7
To better facilitate ongoing settlement discussions, Mr. July wishes to dismiss voluntarily
8
Count Two of his Counterclaim in its entirety, including any monetary damages contained in his
9
prayer for relief allegedly arising from Dilution. As to Count One of his Counterclaim, Mr. July
10
wishes to retain only those portions requesting injunctive relief and a recovery of his costs and
11
attorneys fees. Mr. July requests that these allegations be dismissed without prejudice.
12
B.
13
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) allows a party requesting relief to voluntarily
14
dismiss its claims by filing a notice of dismissal “before the opposing party serves either an
15
answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Otherwise, the provisions of F.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) are
16
applicable, which provides that:
Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request
only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper…Unless the order states
otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.
17
18
19
20
21
22
In this matter, Plaintiff has responded to Defendant’s Counterclaim and filed a motion
pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). From this it would appear that the provisions of Rule 41(a)(1)
are not applicable, and Defendant cannot summarily dismiss his own claims by merely filing a
23
notice. A dismissal as Defendant has outlined is therefore only permissible under Rule 41(a)(2),
24
namely by order of this Honorable Court. Under that rule, such a dismissal should be without
25
prejudice.
26
27
…
28
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
C.
CONCLUSION
From the foregoing, a dismissal of Defendant’s Counterclaim Count One partially as
outlined above and Count Two entirely is in the interests of justice.
6
DATED THIS 28th DAY OF November 2011.
7
SANFT LAW GROUP
8
9
10
11
12
/s/ Michael W. Sanft
MICHAEL W. SANFT, ESQ.
Nevada Bar. No. 8245
SANFT LAW GROUP
520 South Fourth
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Defendants
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?