2-Way Computing, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership Inc.
Filing
41
ORDER Granting 40 Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. ORDERED that 2-Way's claims for relief against Verizon are dismissed with prejudice and Verizon's claims, defenses and/or counterclaims for relief against 2-Way are dismissed without pre judice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) & (c). FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys' fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/9/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Case 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH Document 40 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
10
11
12
13
14
15
Reza Mirzaie, Esq.
(Pro Hac Vice)
rmirzaie@raklaw.com
Paul S. Kroeger, Esq.
(Pro Hac Vice)
pkroeger@raklaw.com
Stanley H. Thompson, Jr., Esq.
(Pro Hac Vice)
sthompson@raklaw.com
C. Jay Chung, Esq.
(Pro Hac Vice)
jchung@raklaw.com
RUSS AUGUST
A AT
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: (310) 826-7474
Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
Mar Borghese, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6231
mark@borgheselegal.com
L
L
10161 Par Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
T: (702) 382-0200
F: (702) 382-0212
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2-WAY COMPUTING INC.
16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2-WAY COMPUTING, INC., a Nevada
corporation,
v.
Case No.: 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH
Plaintiff,
OINT MOTION TO DISMISS
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON
WIRELESS INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
26
WHEREAS, Plaintiff 2-Way Computing, Inc. (“2-Way”) and Defendant Cellco
27
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) have resolved 2-Way’s claims for relief against
28
Verizon and Verizon’s counterclaims for relief against 2-Way asserted in this case.
Case 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH Document 40 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 6
1
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) and (c), 2-Way and Verizon
2
through their attorneys of record, request this Court to dismiss 2-Way’s claims for relief against
3
Verizon with prejudice and Verizon’s claims, defenses or counterclaims for relief against 2-Way
4
without prejudice, and with all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses borne by the party
5
incurring same.
6
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a Proposed Order of Dismissal.
7
8
9
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
10
11
12
13
14
Dated: June 1, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark Borghese
Mar Borghese
mark@borgheselegal.com
Borghese Legal, Ltd.
10161 Par Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Telephone No.: (702) 382-0200
Facsimile No.: (702) 382-0212
/s/ Chad R. Fears
Chad R. Fears, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 6970
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
3883 Howard Hughes Par way, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, NV 89169
18
Reza Mirzaie (pro hac vice)
Paul S. Kroeger (pro hac vice)
Stanley H. Thompson, Jr. (pro hac vice)
C. Jay Chung (pro hac vice)
Russ, August & Kabat
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: 310.826.7474
19
Darcy L. Jones, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Marcus A. Barber, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres
& Friedman LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Attorneys for Defendant
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
16
17
Attorneys for Defendant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH Document 40 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2
I am a resident of Clar County, Nevada and am over the age of 18 years and not a party
3
to the action. My business address is: 10161 Par Run Drive, Suite 150, Las Vegas, Nevada,
4
89145.
5
On
1 201 , I served this document on the parties listed on the attached service list
6
via one or more of the methods of service described below as indicated next to the name of the
7
served individual or entity by a chec ed box:
8
9
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
10
11
PERSONAL SERVICE: by personally hand-delivering or causing to be hand delivered
by such designated individual whose particular duties include delivery of such on behalf
of the firm, addressed to the individual(s) listed, signed by such individual or
his/her representative accepting on his/her behalf. A receipt of copy signed and dated by
such an individual confirming delivery of the document will be maintained with the
document and is attached.
12
EMAIL: By transmitting a copy of the document to the electronic-mail address
designated by the attorney or the party who has consented to such manner of service.
13
E-FILE: Automatically through the court’s electronic filing system.
14
FA SERVICE: by transmitting to a facsimile machine maintained by the attorney or
the party who has consented to such manner of service.
15
16
17
18
MAIL SERVICE: by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Las Vegas, Nevada. I am readily familiar
with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence by mailing. Under that
practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage
fully prepaid at Las Vegas, Nevada in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing an affidavit.
19
20
21
I declare that under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Nevada that the
above is true and correct. I further declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the
bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.
22
23
/s/ Mark Borghese
24
An employee of BORGHESE LEGAL, LTD.
25
26
27
28
2
Case 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH Document 40 Filed 06/01/16 Page 4 of 6
SERVICE LIST
1
2
3
4
5
6
ATTORNE S
OF RECORD
PARTIES
REPRESENTED
METHOD OF
SERVICE
Chad R. Fears
S
W
LLP
3883 Howard Hughes Par way,
Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Attorneys for
Defendant
Personal service
Email
E-File
Fax service
Mail service
Darcy L. Jones, Esq.
Marcus A. Barber, Esq.
ASOWIT
ENSON TORRES
FRIEDMAN LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Attorneys for
Defendant
Personal service
Email
E-File
Fax service
Mail service
7
8
9
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH Document 40 Filed 06/01/16 Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
Case 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH Document 40 Filed 06/01/16 Page 6 of 6
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
2-WAY COMPUTING, INC., a Nevada
corporation,
5
6
7
8
9
v.
Case No.: 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH
Plaintiff,
[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON
WIRELESS INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
10
Plaintiff 2-Way Computing, Inc. (“2-Way”) and Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff
11
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) announced to the Court that they have
12
resolved 2-Way’s claims for relief against Verizon asserted in this case and Verizon’s claims,
13
defenses and/or counterclaims for relief against 2-Way asserted in this case. Pursuant to Fed. R.
14
Civ. P. 41(a) & (c), 2-Way and Verizon have therefore requested that the Court dismiss 2-Way’s
15
claims for relief against Verizon with prejudice and Verizon’s claims, defenses and/or
16
counterclaims for relief against 2-Way without prejudice, and with all attorneys’ fees, costs and
17
expenses taxed against the party incurring same. The Court, having considered this request, is of
18
the opinion that their request for dismissal should be granted.
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 2-Way’s claims for relief against Verizon are
20
dismissed with prejudice and Verizon’s claims, defenses and/or counterclaims for relief against
21
2-Way are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) & (c).
22
23
24
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses shall be
borne by each party incurring the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
25
26
27
28
____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
June 9, 2016
DATED: ____________________
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?