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)

Download PDF
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?