C-Byte Company, Inc. v. Vegas Brand Enterprises Inc., et al.,

Filing 14

ORDER that 1 Motion to Enforce Stay is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 8 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 1 Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Stay is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that, because plaintiffs have failed to commence a civil action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, the clerk of court shall close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/16/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 C-BYTE COMPANY, INC., et al., 8 9 10 Case No. 2:14-CV-1231 JCM (VCF) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. VEGAS BRAND ENTERPRISES INC., et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is pro se plaintiffs C-Byte Company, Inc. and Trevor Biscope’s 14 motion to enforce stay. (Doc. # 1). Defendants did not file a response and the deadline to do so 15 has passed. 16 Also before the court is defendants Vegas Brand Enterprises, Inc., C-Byte Computer 17 Systems, LLC, Wanda Brink, Ron Brink, National Arbitration Forum, Houston Putnam Lowry, 18 and Debrett G. Lyons’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ “motion to enforce stay.” (Doc. # 8). Plaintiffs 19 filed a response (doc. # 12) and defendants filed a reply (doc. # 8). 20 This matter involves a dispute between the parties as to the ownership of several internet 21 domain names. (Doc. # 8). Appointed arbitrators have held twice that the domain names at issue 22 belong to defendants and have ordered those domain names be transferred back to defendants. 23 (Doc. # 8-1). Plaintiffs disagree with the arbitration decisions and appear to attempt to initiate an 24 action in this court to overrule the prior arbitration decisions. 25 Plaintiffs have not filed a complaint in this action. Instead of filing a complaint, plaintiffs 26 filed a motion to enforce stay. (Doc. # 1). The court is unable to grant plaintiffs’ motion to enforce 27 stay, as plaintiff has failed to file a complaint initiating an action against defendants. See Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”). Even if the court James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge 1 were able to consider plaintiffs’ motion to enforce stay, the court fails to see how a stay is legally 2 and factually supported in the instant action. Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce stay is a jumble of 3 confused legal arguments and cites no controlling law. 4 Though defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ motion to enforce stay, it appears 5 that defendants are actually moving to dismiss the case in its entirety. Defendants assert that 6 plaintiffs have failed to (1) allege any facts to support a basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 7 Rule 12(b)(1); (2) allege any facts to support a finding that this court has personal jurisdiction over 8 the moving defendants under Rule 12(b)(2); and (3) state a claim upon which relief can be granted 9 under 12(b)(6). Therefore, defendants assert that, based on plaintiffs’ failure to file the information 10 required by Rule 8(a) in their “complaint,” dismissal of the action is appropriate for lack of subject 11 matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. 12 Because the court declines to view plaintiffs’ motion to enforce stay as a complaint, 13 defendants’ arguments are premature. Defendants cannot assert these defenses before a complaint 14 has been failed. 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiffs’ motion to 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 enforce stay (doc. # 1) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ motion to enforce stay (doc. # 8) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because plaintiffs have failed to commence a civil action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, the clerk of court shall close the case. DATED March 16, 2015. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

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?