Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 54

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 42 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Incentive Capital, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
INCENTIVE CAPITAL, LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Company,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANT TED
BAER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION

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 Paul Warner

Defendants.
Plaintiff Incentive Capital, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Incentive”), by and through its counsel,
hereby move, pursuant to DUCivR 77-2, for an order extending once, for seven (7) days, the
time within which to respond to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction (Docket No. 43) (“Baer’s Motion to Dismiss”).

1

The current deadline for filing the opposition memorandum is Friday June 17, 2011.
Plaintiff has not previously requested an extension with respect to opposing Baer’s Motion to
Dismiss, and has insufficient time to complete the complicated and lengthy opposition brief )
(necessitated by the jurisdictional challenge raised by Baer’s Motion to Dismiss) in light of
certain deadlines and hearings in unrelated cases and due to the fact that much of Plaintiff’s time
and efforts have been devoted to litigating a substantially similar dispute between the parties
which is currently pending before the Federal Central District Court of California in an attempt
to obtain a dismissal or transfer of such action to this Court. Baer’s Motion to Dismiss has
serious implications for Plaintiff’s case and Plaintiff’s counsel needs additional time to carefully
and adequately brief the complex procedural and jurisdictional issues raised therein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for an Order extending its time to file its opposition
memorandum to Baer’s Motion to Dismiss to Friday June 24, 2011. A Proposed Order is filed
concurrently herewith.
DATED this 14th day of June, 2011.
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD & MOSS
/s/ Joseph G. Pia
Joseph Pia
Attorneys for Plaintiff

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 14th day of June, 2011, I caused a true and correct copy of
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT TED
BAER’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which served
the following pursuant to Rules 5(b)(2)(D) and (E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Dennis R. James
Brian H. Hess
MORGAN, MINNOCK, RICE & JAMES, L.C.
Kearns Building, Eighth Floor
136 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
[e-mail]
Jonathan M. Levitan, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN MARK LEVITAN
12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1300
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Michael O’Brien
VANCOTT BAGLEY
36 S. State St., Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Wayne G. Petty
MOYLE & DRAPER, P.C.
175 East 400 South, No. 900
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

/s/ Joseph Pia

3