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)

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 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 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

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?