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)
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: joe.pia@padrm.com
nathan@padrm.com
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
jsnow@vancott.com
kobrien@vancott.com
Jonathan M. Levitan
jonathanlevitan@aol.com
Wayne G. Petty
MOYLE & DRAPER, P.C.
wayne@moylelawfirm.com
Marc E. Kasowitz
David J. Shapiro
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
mkasowitz@kasowitz.com
dshapiro@kasowitz.com
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?