Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 56

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 47 MOTION to Quash service pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) 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 PETER
JAROWEY’S MOTION TO QUASH
SERVICE

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 fifteen (15) days, the
time within which to respond to Defendant Peter Jarowey’s Motion to Quash Service (Docket
No. 47) (“Jarowey’s Motion to Quash”).

1

The deadline for filing a response to Jarowey’s Motion to Quash was Thursday June 9,
2011. Plaintiff has not previously requested an extension with respect to opposing Jarowey’s
Motion to Quash, and has insufficient time to complete the opposition brief (necessitated by the
challenge raised to service by Jarowey’s Motion to Quash) 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. The Court recently granted other Defendants in
this action more than a one-month extension to file an answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
(from the original due date of May 23, 2011 to the extended deadline of June 27, 2011) based
primarily on Defendants’ argument that the pending California action between the parties
necessitated the extension. Likewise, Plaintiff’s counsel needs additional time given the time
and effort that has been devoted to the California action to carefully and adequately brief the
issues raised by Jarowey’s Motion to Quash.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an Order extending its time to file its opposition
memorandum to Jarowey’s Motion to Quash to Friday June 24, 2011. A Proposed Order is filed
concurrently herewith.
DATED this 15th 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 15th day of June, 2011, I caused a true and correct copy of
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT
PETER JAROWEY’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE 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