Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al
Filing
67
MOTION Reconsider Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant Ted Baer's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re 65 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, filed by Defendant Ted Baer. Motions referred to Samuel Alba.(James, Dennis)
Dennis R. James, No. 1642
Brian H. Hess, No. 10313
MORGAN, MINNOCK, RICE & JAMES, L.C.
Kearns Building, Eighth Floor
136 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Telephone No.: (801) 531-7888
Facsimile No.: (801) 531-9732
djames@mmrj.com
Attorneys for Defendant Ted Baer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
INCENTIVE CAPITAL, LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
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,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DEFENDANT TED BAER’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT TED BAER’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION
Civil No. 2:11-CV-00288
Honorable Clark Waddoups
Defendant Ted Baer, appearing specially by and through his attorneys of record, hereby
motions the court to reconsider its Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond
to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s broad discretion, the Court can reconsider its
interlocutory orders at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see, e.g., Anderson v. Deere & Co., 852
F.2d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 1988) (“It is within the District Judge's discretion to revise his
interlocutory orders prior to entry of final judgment.”); Artificial Nail Technologies, Inc. v.
Flowering Scents, LLC, 2007 WL 3254744 (D. Utah Nov. 2, 2007).
The Court entered the Order on July 1, 2011, on the same day Defendant Ted Baer filed
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond Defendant Ted
Baer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Defendant Ted Baer’s opposition was filed
within the 14 days allotted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for opposing motions. See
DUCivR 7-1(B). Defendant Ted Baer accordingly requests that the Court reconsider its entry of
the July 1, 2001 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant Ted
Baer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and consider Defendant Ted Baer’s opposition
to the Motion.
DATED this 1st day of July, 2011.
MORGAN, MINNOCK, RICE & JAMES, L.C.
/s/ Dennis R. James
Dennis R. James
Brian H. Hess
Counsel for Defendant Ted Baer
S:\DENNIS\INCENTIVE CAPITAL V. CAMELOT\RECONSIDER.ORDER.EXTENSION.DOCX
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 1st day of July, 2011, I electronically filed a true and correct
copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER
ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the
following:
Wayne G. Petty
Joseph G. Pia
MOYLE & DRAPER, P.C.
Nathan S. Dorius
wayne@moylelawfirm.com
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD &
Attorneys for Defendant Peter Jarowey
MOSS, PLLC
joe.pia@padrm.com
nathan@padrm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Marc E. Kasowitz
David J. Shapiro
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES &
FRIEDMAN LLP
mkasowitz@kasowitz.com
dshapiro@kasowitz.com
Attorneys for Defendant Peter Jarowey
John A. Snow
Karen E. O’Brien
VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNWALL &
McCARTHY
jsnow@vancott.com
kobrien@vancott.com
Attorneys for Defendants Camelot, Atwell,
Thompson and Istock
Jonathan M. Levitan
jonathanlevitan@aol.com
Attorneys for Defendants Camelot, Atwell,
Thompson and Istock
/s/ Lynette Ambrose
S:\DENNIS\INCENTIVE CAPITAL V. CAMELOT\RECONSIDER.ORDER.EXTENSION.DOCX
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?