Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 59

MOTION for Extension of Time Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by Defendants Robert P. Atwell, Camelot Distribution Group, Camelot Entertainment Group, Camelot Film Group, Steven Istock, Jamie R. Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Samuel Alba.(Snow, John)

VAN COTT, BAGLEY, CORNWALL & McCARTHY
John A. Snow (3025) [e-mail]
Karen O’Brien (11739) [e-mail]
Jonathan M. Levitan (Ca Bar No. 106798) admitted pro hac vice
36 South State Street, Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Camelot Entertainment
Group, Inc., Camelot Film Group, Inc., Camelot Distribution
Group, Inc, Steven Istock, Robert P. Atwell and Jamie R. Thompson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

INCENTIVE CAPITAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE
RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT

v.
NO HEARING REQUESTED
CAMELOT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,
INC., ET. AL.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:11-CV-00288
Judge Clark Waddoups

Pursuant to DUCiv R 7-1, Defendants Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc.,
Camelot Film Group, Inc., Camelot Distribution Group, Inc, Steven Istock, Jamie
Thompson and Robert P. Atwell, (jointly “Defendants”), hereby move this court
for an order extending the time that said Defendants must file an Answer or
otherwise respond to the Complaint. The Answer by Defendants is currently due
June 27, 2011.

This Motion is based on the following facts:
1. Defendants dispute that any amount of money is owed to Incentive by
or from any of them.
2. On February 15, 2011 Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc. (“Camelot”)
filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, which is entitled Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc v. Incentive Capital
LLC, Case Number BC 455114. In the Complaint filed in the California action
Camelot alleged, among other things, that Incentive had been paid in full by the
tender of cash and shares to Incentive.
3. On March 11, 2011 Incentive removed the State Court action to the
United States District Court, Central District of California. (The “California
Action”). The removal was based on diversity of citizenship. The California
Action is assigned Case Number CV-11-02323-DDP-FMXo, which is pending
before Judge Dean D. Pregerson.
4. Incentive has filed a motion to dismiss the California Action or, in the
alternative, to transfer that action to this Court. The Motion is scheduled to be
heard on June 13, 2011. Camelot has filed an opposition to the motion.
5.

The Complaint in the California Action has previously been filed in this

Court as part of plaintiff’s second application for a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction.

2
411666v.1

6. If Camelot, or any of the other Defendants were to respond in this
action it would raise exactly the same defenses and claims that it alleges in the
California Action, namely that the indebtedness to Incentive has been fully
satisfied by Camelot’s tender and delivery of shares as mandated in the Escrow
Agreement between the parties.
REASON FOR THIS APPLICATION
1. If Camelot loses the motion to dismiss/transfer the California Action on
June 13, 2011, it will not seek to transfer this action to California and will respond
to the Complaint filed in this action with an answer and crossclaim, which will
essentially duplicate the claims in the California Action.
2. If Camelot were to prevail on June 13, 2011, it would then seek to
transfer this action to California in the interests of justice and other grounds.
3. On June 8, 2011 the Court notified the parties that the hearing on the
motion scheduled for June 13, 2011 was taken off the calendar and that the
motion would be determined without oral argument. At this time there has been
no decision issued by the California Court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested that this Motion to
Extend Time to Answer or otherwise respond be granted to allow Defendants to
and including July 22, 2011 to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint
filed in this action, so that the interests of judicial economy and clarity be served.

3
411666v.1

DATED this 23rd day of June, 2011.
VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNWALL & McCARTHY

/s/ John A. Snow
John A. Snow
Attorneys for Defendants Camelot Entertainment
Group, Inc., Camelot Film Group, Inc., Camelot
Distribution Group, Inc., Steven Istock, Robert
P. Atwell and Jamie R. Thompson

4
411666v.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of June, 2011, I electronically filed the
foregoing MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE
RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF
system, which sent notification to the following:
Joseph G. Pia
Nathan S. Dorius
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD & MOSS
222 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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]
Wayne G. Petty
MOYLE & DRAPER, P.C.
175 East 400 South, No. 900
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Jonathan M. Levitan
12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1300
Los Angeles, CA 90025
_/s/John A. Snow__________________

4826-3133-6201, v. 2

5
411666v.1