Bray et al v QFA Royalties

Filing 28

RESPONSE to Motion re 25 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Letter to J. Kane filed by Plaintiffs Ali Majed, Q Food Service, Inc., Brad Fix, Jan Fix, BJ and F LLC, Richard Newkirk, Maureen Newkirk, David Newkirk, Newkirk Enterprises, Inc., R&M Enterprises LLP, Chris Bray, Hakim Abid, Allison Abid, Daniel G. Carter, Jr, Jody L. Carter, Daniel G. Carter, Sr, Madeleine Carter, Carter Group LLC, Carter Group Roseville LLC, Glenn Keane, Sabine Bray, Anne Keane, LKB LLC, David Tate, Big Little Property Investments, CTH Investments, Training Pros Inc., Jehad Majed. (Stross, Gregory)

Download PDF
Bray et al v QFA Royalties Doc. 28 Case 1:06-cv-02528-JLK Document 28 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 1 of 2 GREGORY R. STROSS ATTORNEY AT LAW 1700 LINCOLN SUITE 2940 DENVER, COLORADO 80203 OFFICE 303-339-0647 FAX 303-339-0899 gstross@earthlink.net January 29, 2007 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Honorable John L. Kane United States District Court for the District of Colorado Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, A838 901 19th Street Denver, CO 80294 Re: Chris Bray, et al. v. QFA Royalties, LLC Civil Action No. 06-cv-02528-JLK-CBS Dear Judge Kane: This office represents Plaintiffs in the above referenced matter. A forthwith hearing was conducted on December 22, 2006 and a hearing on Plaintiffs' pending Motion For Preliminary Injunction was scheduled for February 12-14, 2007. On January 10, 2007 the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Set Discovery Schedule on Expedited Basis and Set Briefing Schedule And Extend Deadlines. CM/ECF document #26. The Court granted that motion on the same day. CM/ECF document #27. The discovery order in place provides that Defendant shall have until 15 days following the Courts' ruling on the Motion For Preliminary Injunction in which to answer or provide other response to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Immediately prior to jointly determining the discovery schedule, Defendant nonetheless filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment concerning to whether a Federal question exists under Plaintiffs' second claim for relief. CM/ECF document #25. Plaintiffs believe the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is premature. The very purpose in extending the period to respond to the complaint was to allow the parties to focus upon conducting discovery for the preliminary injunctive hearing. Defendants should not be permitted to use their greater financial resources to circumvent that purpose and cause undue burden upon the Plaintiffs as they prepare for the hearing. Nor should Plaintiffs be required to address such motions in piecemeal fashion. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-02528-JLK Document 28 Filed 01/30/2007 Page 2 of 2 GREGORY R. STROSS Bray v. QFA Royalties 06-cv-02528-JLK-CBS Letter Judge J. Kane January 29, 2007 Page No. 2 ______________________________________ Plaintiffs respectfully request that Your Honor strike the Motion with leave to refile, or in the alternative, set a response date following a reasonable period after the hearing on the Preliminary Injunction is held. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, s/ Gregory R. Stross Gregory R. Stross cc: L. MacPhee, Esq. (via CM/ECF) R. Cohen, Esq. (via CM/ECF) J. Klein, Esq. (via CM/ECF)

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?