Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 103

MOTION for Writ Attachment filed by Plaintiff Incentive Capital. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Samuel Alba.(Pia, Joseph)

Download PDF
Joseph G. Pia (9945) Nathan S. Dorius (8977) PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD & MOSS 222 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone: (801) 350-9000 Facsimile: (801) 950-9010 E-mail: Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION INCENTIVE CAPITAL, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, MOTION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT Plaintiff, v. CAMELOT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CAMELOT FILM GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation; CAMELOT DISTRIBUTION GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation, ROBERT P. ATWELL, an individual; JAMIE R. THOMPSON, an individual; STEVEN ISTOCK, an individual; TED BAER, an individual; PETER JAROWEY, an individual, Civil No. 2:11-cv-00288 Judge Clark Waddoups Defendants. Plaintiff Incentive Capital, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Incentive”), by and through its counsel, respectfully moves for an Order from the Court issuing a prejudgment writ of attachment (the 1   “Writ”), pursuant to Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rules 64 and 64C of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of the Writ is attach/sequester and hold in the Court’s possession revenues generated by Defendants Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc. (“CEG”); Camelot Film Group, Inc. (“CFG”); and Camelot Distribution Group, Inc. (“CDG” and collectively with CEG and CFG, “Camelot”) from its exploitation of the Liberation Assets (a film and television library containing hundreds of media titles) and the Distribution Assets (comprising 13 film titles) (collectively the “Library”) which were pledged as security for the Note up to an amount equal to: (i) the amount of principal and balance owed by Camelot under the Note executed between Camelot and Incentive to memorialize the loan (the “Loan”) made by Incentive to Camelot in the initial principal amount of $650,000 (ii) the amount necessary bring Camelot current on all outstanding monthly Profit Participation Payments (monthly payments owed by Camelot to Incentive under the Profit Participation Agreement of ten percent (10%) of all gross revenues generated by Camelot from any third party in connection with Camelot’s exploitation of the Liberation Assets “in all media, worldwide, from all sources”) presently owed by Camelot to Incentive, (iii) the amount required to bring Camelot current on all outstanding monthly Loan Modification Payments (1.5% per month of the balance of the minimum sales target of $2,284,500 not paid to Incentive by April 27, 2011), and (iv) the amount needed to keep Camelot current on such payments during the pendency of this dispute, for purposes of preserving the monies owed to Incentive under the Loan and the Library from dissipation, to ensure the postjudgment availability of it to satisfy 2   Incentive’s claim against Camelot in this case, and because there exists a dispute as to the ownership of the Library. Incentive’s Motion is supported by the First Declaration of James Mecham, manager of Incentive, filed in support of its Second Request for Temporary Restraining Order and the Second Declaration of James Mecham filed concurrently herewith. DATED this 1st day of September, 2011. PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD & MOSS /s/ Joseph Pia Joseph Pia Attorneys for Plaintiff 3   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 1st day of September, 2011, a true and correct copy of forgoing MOTION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT was served by electronic mail on the following: John A. Snow Karen E. O’Brien VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNALL & McCARTHY Jonathan M. Levitan Wayne G. Petty MOYLE & DRAPER, P.C. Marc E. Kasowitz David J. Shapiro KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP By: /s/ Joseph Pia 4  

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?