Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 82

OBJECTIONS to 81 Request to Submit for Decision filed by 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 Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
INCENTIVE CAPITAL, LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Company,
OBJECTION TO NOTICE TO
SUBMIT REGARDING TED
BAER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION

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,

AND MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
PERMIT FILING OF OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO DISMISS TODAY
Civil No. 2:11-cv-00288-CW
Judge Clark Waddoups

Defendants.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Plaintiff Incentive Capital, LLC
(“Plaintiff” or “Incentive”), by and through its counsel, respectfully files this Objection to

1

Defendant Ted Baer’s Notice to Submit and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Permit Filing
of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Today.
ARGUMENT
Defendant Baer is correct that Plaintiff requested five (5) days from the filing of the
Answer by the Atwell Defendants to file a response to the above-referenced Motion to Dismiss.
The Court granted this request [Dkt Entry No. 65]. Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider [Dkt
Entry No. 67]. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Reconsider [Dkt Entry No. 71].
Yesterday, August 4, 2011 the Court considered the Motion to Reconsider and reaffirmed its prior ruling granting the extension [Dkt Entry No. 80]. Plaintiff’s counsel has been
out of the State on a family vacation this week and did not see the ruling until this morning, at
which point Plaintiff also saw the Request to Submit.
In retrospect, Plaintiff sees that it could have acted more cautiously and filed its
Opposition Memorandum on August 3, 2011 or even sooner, before the Court issued its Order on
the Motion to Reconsider. Plaintiff may have made a mistake in this regard. Plaintiff’s
Opposition was already prepared and will be filed today. Plaintiff respectfully requests that
since the Court had not yet ruled on the Motion to Reconsider until yesterday, and that Plaintiff’s
counsel was out of State and did not see the ruling until this morning, that the Opposition Motion
be allowed to be filed today.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 permits an extension of time “on motion made after the
time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff respectfully suggests that it failed to act because of excusable neglect and
requests that it be allowed to file its Opposition today, one day after the Court’s ruling.

2

CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Request to Submit be denied and that
the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss that will be filed today, be considered by the Court.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2011.
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD & MOSS

/s/ Joseph Pia
Joseph Pia
Attorneys for Plaintiff

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of August, 2011, a true and correct copy of forgoing
OBJECTION TO NOTICE TO SUBMIT REGARDING TED BAER’S MOTION TO
DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PERMIT FILING OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
DISMISS TODAY was served by electronic mail on the following:
John A. Snow
Karen E. O’Brien
VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNALL & McCARTHY
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Jonathan M. Levitan
[e-mail]
Wayne G. Petty
MOYLE & DRAPER, P.C.
[e-mail]
Marc E. Kasowitz
David J. Shapiro
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

By: /s/ Joseph Pia

4