90 Treasure Island opposition.pdf
100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1600
LAS VEGAS, NV 89106
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Case 2:12-cv-00239-KJD -RJJ Document 90
Filed 07/13/12 Page 3 of 12
Motion to Reconsider Orders Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and to Enlarge Time for
Filing Responses to Motions (Doc. 85) ("Motion to Reconsider") presents the Court with no valid
reason to reconsider and vacate its Order (Doc. 73) ("Dismissal Order") granting Defendants
Gilley's Las Vegas and Treasure Island, LLC's1 (collectively, the "Treasure Island Defendants")
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 35) ("Motion to Dismiss"). Nor
does Plaintiff present the Court with any basis to extend its deadline to file a response to the
Motion to Dismiss, particularly when a response is already on file.
Specifically, Plaintiff presents no viable excuse for its failure to respond to the Motion to
Dismiss. While Plaintiff attempts to blame its dilatory conduct on its former attorney, Donna
Boris, Plaintiff has no excuse for its own failure to take action once it was on notice of Boris'
alleged neglect.2 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider does not even present the Court with a uniform
argument, because it purports to be made pursuant to one rule and yet presents argument under a
wholly different standard. Most importantly, the Motion to Reconsider does not and cannot
present this Court with new law, new facts, or any other reason why the Court should reconsider
its ruling, given the meritorious arguments presented in the Motion to Dismiss. For all of these
reasons, the Motion to Reconsider should be denied in every respect.
As the Court is by now well aware, Plaintiff named an astounding ninety-five defendants
in this action for alleged trademark infringement, including the two Treasure Island Defendants.
See Complaint (Doc. 1). Yet, Plaintiff failed in its Complaint to articulate each defendant's
allegedly infringing conduct or give any indication as to how the defendants' alleged conduct is
related. Id. That is, Plaintiff rested upon blanket allegations that a number of unaffiliated
"karaoke DJs" infringe upon its trademark SOUND CHOICE, which Plaintiff uses in connection
with its manufacture of karaoke discs while performing at various unrelated venues. Id. This
"Treasure Island", referenced in the Complaint, is not an entity. Treasure Island, LLC is
the corporate party properly named in the Complaint.
Notably, while Plaintiff maligns the efforts of its pro hac vice counsel Donna Boris,
Plaintiff's Nevada counsel, Kerry Faughnan, has represented Plaintiff throughout this action and
continues to do so with no objection from Plaintiff.