Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[WinstonG_esq]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
* * *
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., a Nevada corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE, INC.; a California corporation,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 2:16-CV-00260-RFB-VCF

MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves the Court for a status conference with the Court in order to (1) determine whether a related case docketed as VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF should be reassigned to the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and (2) determine whether the stay of this case (filed February 9, 2016) should be lifted so that this case may proceed on a normal litigation track along with two related cases that are no longer subject to a stay, namely VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-CWH.

1. On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a Notice of Related Cases (D.E. No. 40) in this action, identifying two related cases that are pending in this Court, docketed as VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF (the “Verizon/ATT Case” (filed February 10, 2016)) and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-CWH (the “Twitter Case” (filed October 6, 2016)). Notably, in the Twitter Case, the Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II is presiding while, in the Verizon/ATT Case, the Honorable Robert C. Jones is presiding.

2. In Plaintiff’s Notice of Related Cases (D.E. No. 40), Plaintiff submitted that assignment to a single District Judge is desirable because, as set forth in more detail in Plaintiff’s Notice, this case, the Verizon/ATT Case and the Twitter Case all complain of infringement of the same two United States patents, namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,542,815 (the “‘815 patent”) and 9,179,005 (the “‘005 patent”).

3. Accordingly, common questions of law and fact exist between this case, the Verizon/ATT Case and the Twitter Case, at least with respect to validity and claim construction issues.

4. At a status conference before the Honorable Robert C. Jones in the Verizon/ATT Case, Judge Jones placed the Verizon/ATT Case on a normal litigation track and recommended “that counsel request a hearing before Judge Richard Boulware to discuss consolidation of the cases.” (See Verizon/ATT Case at D.E. No. 58 (emphasis added)). In terms of sequence, this case (J.Boulware) was the first to be filed, the Verizon/ATT Case (J. Jones) was the second to be filed and the Twitter Case (J. Boulware) was the third to be filed.

5. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests a status conference with the Court to determine whether reassignment of the Verizon/ATT Case is appropriate or alternatively, to determine such other reassignments that the Court might deem proper.

6. Plaintiff also requests a status conference regarding the stay that has been entered in this case. (D.E. No. 27). On January 26, 2018, the parties to this action, through counsel, filed a Joint Status Report (D.E. No. 37) submitting “that, under the current circumstances, the stay of this case should be lifted, and that Apple’s answer or other response to Voip-Pal’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court lifting the stay of this case.” (D.E. No. 37 at p. 2 (emphasis added)). To date, this Court has not lifted the stay.

7. Notably however, the stay of the related Twitter Case, also pending before the Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II, has been lifted. Also, as noted above, the Verizon/ATT Case is now proceeding on a normal litigation track. Accordingly, because it would be most efficient to engage in discovery of this case, along with the Verizon/ATT Case and the Twitter Case, Plaintiff respectfully submits that this case should no longer be subject to a stay, especially considering that Apple, Inc. has agreed that the stay of this case should be lifted. (See D.E. No. 37 at p. 2).

8. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests a status conference before the Court in order to (1) determine whether a related case docketed as VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF should be reassigned to the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and (2) determine whether the stay of this case should be lifted so that this case may proceed on a normal litigation track along with two related cases that are no longer subject to a stay, namely VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-CWH.


DATED this 23rd day of May, 2018.

MALEK MOSS PLLC
/s/ Kevin N. Malek .
KEVIN N. MALEK, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
340 Madison Avenue, FL 19
New York, New York 10173
[phone]
[e-mail]

ALVERSON, TAYLOR,
MORTENSEN & SANDERS
KURT R. BONDS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6228
ADAM R. KNECHT, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13166
6605 Grand Montecito Parkway
Suite 200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89149


Attorneys for Plaintiff
Voip-Pal.com, Inc.