Perritt et al v. The Cupcakery, et al

Filing 97

NOTICE by Buster Baking, Ricky B Perritt, The Cupcakery, The Woodlands Baking, LLC re 90 Opposed SEALED MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Supplemental Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue (Notice of Filing of Supplemental Certificate of Conference) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Barnes, Stephanie)

EXHIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
RICKY B. PERRITT, Individually;
THE CUPCAKERY, LLC, a Texas Limited
Liability Company; BUSTER BAKING,
LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company;
THE WOODLANDS BAKING, LLC,
a Texas Limited Liability Company;
CUSTOM VERSION CORPORATION,
a Texas Corporation
Plaintiffs,
v.
PAMELA F. JENKINS, Individually; and
THE CUPCAKERY LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-23

SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE IN CONNECTION WITH
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL SURREPLY BRIEF
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Counsel for Plaintiffs has complied with the meet and confer requirement in Local Rule
CV-7(h). I certify that on July 7, 2011, counsel for Plaintiffs, Stephanie Barnes, attempted to
meet and confer with counsel for Defendants, Jodie Slater, by telephone, on four different
occasions calling and leaving voice messages on Ms. Slater’s office phone twice and on Ms.
Slater’s cell phone twice. These voice messages described the relief sought. Ms. Slater did not
return the phone calls. Considering that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer is pending and could be

1

decided by the Court at any time, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to File Plaintiffs’
Supplemental Surreply Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue as an
opposed motion on the evening of July 7, 2011. (Docket No. 90). The next morning Defendants
filed a response brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave arguing that Plaintiffs’
counsel failed to satisfy the meet and confer requirements set forth in Local Rule CV-7(h)
despite still not returning Plaintiffs’ counsel’s phone calls. (Docket No. 93). Additionally, in a
further attempt to meet and confer, Plaintiffs’ counsel called Defendants’ counsel again on July
8, 2011 after Defendants filed their response brief and left another voice message. Defendants’
counsel did not return this phone call. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of
their Motion for Leave. (Docket No. 95). Defendants’ counsel finally called Plaintiffs’ counsel
on Monday July 11, 2011.

I certify that on July 11, 2011, counsel for Plaintiffs, Stephanie

Barnes, met and conferred with counsel for Defendants, Jodie Slater, by telephone, and the
parties have concluded, in good faith, that they are at an impasse regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Surreply Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
Transfer Venue. (Docket No. 90). Counsel for Defendants has stated that Defendants are
opposed to the relief requested therein. Discussions between the parties have conclusively ended
in an impasse, thereby leaving the issue for the Court to resolve.
Respectfully submitted,
SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH, LLP
/s/ Stephanie R. Barnes
CLYDE M. SIEBMAN
State Bar No. 18341600
BRYAN H. BURG
State Bar No. 03374500
STEPHANIE R. BARNES
State Bar No. 24045696
Federal Courthouse Square

2

300 North Travis Street
Sherman, Texas 75090
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

3