Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 81

REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 42 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Ted Baer. (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.: [phone]
Facsimile No.: [phone]
[e-mail]
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.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

REQUEST TO SUBMIT
DEFENDANT TED BAER’S
MOTION FOR DECISION

Civil No. 2:11-CV-00288
Honorable Clark Waddoups

Defendant Ted Baer, appearing specially, hereby requests that Defendant Ted Baer’s
Motion to Dismiss be submitted for decision.

ARGUMENT
The Atwell Defendants filed their Answer and Counterclaim of Camelot Entertainment
Group, Inc., Camelot Film Group, Inc., Camelot Distribution Group, Inc., Robert P. Atwell, Jamie
R. Thompson, and Steven Istock to Amended Complaint on July 27, 2011, on time and as required
by the Court’s July 1, 2011 Order. By timely filing their answer on July 27, 2011, the Atwell
Defendants triggered the five-day period for Plaintiff Incentive to respond to Defendant Ted
Baer’s Motion to Dismiss, which period expired, August 1, 2011 or, at the very latest on August 3,
2011.
Because the Atwell Defendants answered on July 27, 2011, and because the five-day
deadline set by the July 1, 2011 Order for Plaintiff Incentive to respond to Defendant Ted Baer’s
Motion to Dismiss expired on August 1, 2011 or, at the very latest, August 3, 2011, without any
response in opposition having been filed by Plaintiff Incentive, Defendant Ted Baer requests that
the Court now grant Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2011.
MORGAN, MINNOCK, RICE & JAMES, L.C.

/s/ Dennis R. James
Dennis R. James
Brian H. Hess
Counsel for Defendant Ted Baer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of August, 2011, I electronically filed a true and correct
copy of the foregoing REPLY MEMORANDUM ON DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION
TO RECONSIDER ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION AND REQUEST TO SUBMIT DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION
FOR DECISION 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
[e-mail]
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD &
Attorneys for Defendant Peter Jarowey
MOSS, PLLC
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
John A. Snow
Karen E. O’Brien
VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNWALL &
McCARTHY
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Camelot, Atwell,
Thompson and Istock

Marc E. Kasowitz
David J. Shapiro
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES &
FRIEDMAN LLP
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Peter Jarowey

Jonathan M. Levitan
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Camelot, Atwell,
Thompson and Istock

/s/ Lynette Ambrose