High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TOSTEPHENS MEDIA LLC’S MOTION TODISMISS AND JOINDER
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01356-RLH (RJJ)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (CA State Bar No. 115163) (
pro hac vice
)lpulgram@fenwick.com CLIFFORD C. WEBB (CA State Bar No. 260885) (
pro hac vice pending)
cwebb@fenwick.com FENWICK & WEST LLP555 California Street, 12th FloorSan Francisco, California 94104Telephone: (415) 875-2300Facsimile: (415) 281-1350KURT OPSAHL (CA State Bar No. 191303) (
pro hac vice
)kurt@eff.orgCORYNNE MCSHERRY (CA State Bar No. 221504) (
pro hac vice
)corynne@eff.org ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION454 Shotwell StreetSan Francisco, California 94110Telephone: (415) 436-9333Facsimile: (415) 436-9993CHAD BOWERS (NV State Bar No. 7283)bowers@lawyer.com CHAD A. BOWERS, LTD3202 West Charleston BoulevardLas Vegas, Nevada 89102Telephone: (702) 457-1001Attorneys for Defendant and CounterclaimantDEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, andDefendant DAVID ALLEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company,Plaintiff,v.DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN,an individual,Defendants.)))))))))))))))))))))Case No. 2:10-cv-01356-RLH(RJJ)
MEMORANDUM INOPPOSITION TOSTEPHENS MEDIA LLC’SMOTION TO DISMISS ANDJOINDER
DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of Columbia limited-liability company,Counterclaimant,v.RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company,and STEPHENS MEDIA LLC, a Nevada limited-liabilitycompany,Counterdefendants.
Case 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-RJJ Document 46 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 22
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TOSTEPHENS MEDIA LLC’S MOTION TODISMISS AND JOINDER
i
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01356-RLH (RJJ)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 2
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 5
I. THE COUNTERCLAIM STATES A CASE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEENDEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND AND STEPHENS MEDIA ...................................... 5
A. The Facts Alleged in the Counterclaim Amply Demonstrate Stephens’Media’s Interests in the Copyrighted Work and This Controversy ........................ 5
B. At a Minimum, Democratic Underground Should be PermittedJurisdictional Discovery ........................................................................................ 10
II. THE COUNTERCLAIM IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS REDUNDANT ...... 11
A. The Counterclaim is Necessary to Obtain an Adjudication Binding onStevens Media as a Party ...................................................................................... 11
B. The Declaratory Judgment Counterclaim Is Not Redundant of the OriginalComplaint and Pleadings ...................................................................................... 12
C. Voluntary Dismissal of the Original Complaint Cannot Possibly AdjudicateThe Counterclaim As To Stephens Media ............................................................ 16
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 17
Case 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-RJJ Document 46 Filed 12/07/10 Page 2 of 22
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TOSTEPHENS MEDIA LLC’S MOTION TODISMISS AND JOINDER
ii
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01356-RLH (RJJ)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
C
ASES
AIR-vend, Inc. v. Thorne Indus
.,
Inc.
,625 F. Supp. 1123 (D. Minn. 1985) ........................................................................................ 13
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
,556 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) ........................................................................................ 7
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
,550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 7
Bell v. Hood
,327 U.S. 678 (1946) .................................................................................................................. 6
Blackmer v. Shadow Creek Ranch Dev. Co.
,2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 99224 ................................................................................................... 14
Broadview Chem. Corp. v. Loctite Corp
.,474 F.2d 1391 (2d Cir. 1973) .................................................................................................. 12
Butcher's Union Local No. 498 v. SDC Inv., Inc
.,788 F.2d 535 (9th Cir.1986) .................................................................................................... 10
Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc
.,508 U.S. 83 (1993) .................................................................................................. 2, 13, 15, 17
Diamonds.net LLC v. Idex Online, Ltd.
,590 F. Supp. 2d 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ..................................................................................... 13
Dominion Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Edwin L. Weigand Co.
,126 F.2d 172 (6th Cir. 1942) ............................................................................................. 13, 14
Englewood Lending, Inc. v. G&G Coachella Invs., LLC
,651 F. Supp. 2d. 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................................. 15
Faulkner Press, LLC v. Class Notes, LLC
,94 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1318 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2010) ......................................................... 13
Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co
.,367 U.S. 348 (1961) .................................................................................................................. 5
Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior
,342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 10
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
,504 U.S. 555 (1992) .............................................................................................................. 6, 7
Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n
,497 U.S. 871 (1990) .................................................................................................................. 7
Case 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-RJJ Document 46 Filed 12/07/10 Page 3 of 22
Add a Comment