Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 71

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 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, 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 Plaintiff Incentive Capital. (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

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

INCENTIVE CAPITAL, LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Company,
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,

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANT TED
BAER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Civil No. 2:11-cv-00288
Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.
Pursuant to DUCivR 7 -1, Plaintiff Incentive Capital, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Incentive”), by
and through counsel of record, hereby files this Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Ted
Baer’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of

Time to Respond to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (“Motion
for Reconsideration”).
ARGUMENT
This Court, for good cause, granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time referenced
in Defendant Ted Baer’s (“Baer”) Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff requested the extension
of time in order to prevent the piece-meal litigation that would result if Baer’s previously filed
Motion to Dismiss was allowed to proceed. Although Baer has pursued his own independent
course of action with regard to the present matter, he nonetheless cannot disassociate himself
from the allegations against him in relation to his association with Defendants Robert Atwell,
Camelot Distribution Group, Camelot Entertainment Group, Camelot Film Group, Steven Istock,
and Jamie Thompson (collectively the “Atwell Defendants”) as an agent and/or representative of
Camelot Distribution Group, Camelot Entertainment Group, and/or Camelot Film Group
(collectively “Camelot”). Baer was present at every critical stage of the negotiation, execution
and breach of the Note and Security Agreements at issue. See generally Complaint.
Specifically, Baer served as legal counsel to the Atwell Defendants and acted on their behalf in
relation to the Note and Security Agreements in question. See id at ¶ 80. As such, the
allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint against Baer and the Atwell Defendants are
inextricably intertwined.
Without the benefit of the Atwell Defendants’ filed answer, proceeding on Baer’s Motion
to Dismiss would place the Court in a situation where it would be required to needlessly relitigate the same issues addressed in Baer’s Motion to Dismiss once the Atwell Defendants
finally answer the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
2

Under DUCivR 7-1(B), the Court has the authority to rule on certain motions, including
motions to extend time for performance of an act, at its own discretion. See DUCivR 7-1 (“A
memorandum opposing any motion that is not a motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b),
12(c), and 56 must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion or within such
time as allowed by the court.”) Such was the case in this matter when the Court granted the
Atwell Defendants’ First Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff’s Complaint (“First
Atwell Motion to Extend”) on May 17, 2011. See Dckt. Entry No. 46. The First Atwell Motion
to Extend was granted just three days later on May 20, 2011, without opportunity for objection
by Plaintiff. Id.
The Court has already addressed the issues presented in Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension
of Time and found good cause to grant Plaintiff its request. Further, the deadline for Plaintiff’s
response to Baer’s Motion to Dismiss is just around the corner – just five days after the July 27,
2011 deadline for the Atwell Defendants’ answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Reconsideration of
this Court’s previous order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time will be a waste of
judicial resources and will impose further unnecessary expense upon the parties involved.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendant Ted
Baer’s Motion for Reconsideration.
DATED this 19th day of July, 2011.
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD & MOSS
/Joseph Pia/ ____________________________
Joseph Pia
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 19th day of July, 2011, a true and correct copy of forgoing
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION TO DISMISS was served by
electronic mail on the following:
Milo Steven Marsden
Todd D. Weiler
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
136 South Main Street, Suite 1000
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1685
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
By: /s/ Joseph Pia

4