2-Way Computing, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership Inc., No. 2:2015cv02237 - Document 41 (D. Nev. 2016)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF

2-Way Computing, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership Inc. Doc. 41 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. Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH 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. Dockets.Justia.com 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 7 8 9 RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 10 11 12 13 14 Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a Proposed Order of Dismissal. 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 19 20 21 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. 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 5 6 7 8 9 2-WAY COMPUTING, INC., a Nevada corporation, v. Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:15-cv-02237-GMN-CWH [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: ____________________

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.