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)

Download PDF
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?