Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 88

Defendant's MOTION to Strike 87 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 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.: [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.

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

DEFENDANT TED BAER’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF INCENTIVE’S
MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO TED BAER’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF PERSONAL
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 strike Plaintiff Incentive Capital’s Memorandum in Opposition to Ted Baer’s
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The Court entered an Order on July 1, 2011,

that required Plaintiff Incentive to file its opposition to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss
five days after the Atwell Defendant’s filed an answer to Plaintiff Incentive’s Complaint. The
Atwell Defendants filed their answer to Plaintiff Incentive’s Complaint on July 27, 2011, which
triggered the five-day deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition to be filed. Properly calculated, the
five-day period expired on August 1, 2011. Even if the weekend is excluded in calculated the
5-day period, the time for Plaintiff Incentive to respond to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to
Dismiss expired at the very latest on August 3, 2011. Plaintiff Incentive Capital did not file its
opposition memorandum until August 5, 2011.
Defendant Ted Baer accordingly requests that the Court strike Plaintiff Incentive’s
Memorandum in Opposition to Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
DATED this 10th 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

S:\DENNIS\INCENTIVE CAPITAL V. CAMELOT\MOT.STRIKE.DOCX

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 10th day of August, 2011, I electronically filed a true and
correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF INCENTIVE’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO TED BAER’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION with the Clerk of
Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to the following:
Joseph G. Pia
Nathan S. Dorius
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD &
MOSS, PLLC
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Wayne G. Petty
MOYLE & DRAPER, P.C.
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Peter Jarowey

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

S:\DENNIS\INCENTIVE CAPITAL V. CAMELOT\MOT.STRIKE.DOCX

3