The Department received today Judge Wilper's Order Denying Catledge's and Impact's Motion to Dismiss. He ruled 1) that the case is not barred by the statute of limitations contained in Idaho Code Sec. 30-14-509; 2) that the complaint was pled with sufficient particularity; and 3) that the Department did not fail to join indispensable parties.
Catledge and Impact must now file an Answer and the case can proceed. For various reasons, the deadline for filing the Answer is not set in stone, so I cannot give that date at this time.
We will post a copy of the Order a bit later.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Motion to compel
The Department of Finance has filed a motion to compel discovery against Barbara Nagel, Steve Cabezud, and John Thomson. We filed our discovery requests in August, and they have never responded.
The motion is set for hearing on December 14, 2009, at 11:00 AM, in the Fourth District courthouse, in Boise.
The judge has not yet ruled on Impact's Motion to Dismiss.
Update: The motion to compel was postponed due to a potential conflict that arose with the date. Unless an arrangement can be reached with counsel for defendants, we will re-set the motion for hearing.
There have been no other new developments.
The motion is set for hearing on December 14, 2009, at 11:00 AM, in the Fourth District courthouse, in Boise.
The judge has not yet ruled on Impact's Motion to Dismiss.
Update: The motion to compel was postponed due to a potential conflict that arose with the date. Unless an arrangement can be reached with counsel for defendants, we will re-set the motion for hearing.
There have been no other new developments.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
New Catledge counsel
James Catledge and his Impact companies have retained new local counsel; Monte N. Stewart of the Boise firm Belnap Law, PLLC. So far, no other out-of-state counsel has requested admission.
Mr. Stewart has substituted in, thus rendering the motion to withdraw moot as to Catledge and the Impact companies. The motion is still pending as to David Brimley.
With the substitution of counsel, we should be able to proceed without further delays. As of today, the judge has not ruled on the pending motion to dismiss, or the pending motion for reconsideration.
Mr. Stewart has substituted in, thus rendering the motion to withdraw moot as to Catledge and the Impact companies. The motion is still pending as to David Brimley.
With the substitution of counsel, we should be able to proceed without further delays. As of today, the judge has not ruled on the pending motion to dismiss, or the pending motion for reconsideration.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Hearing result
At the hearing held on Monday, November 2, 2009, I moved to vacate the hearing on the motion to compel, until such time as new counsel appears, and the judge granted that.
Attorney Mike Diaz appeared by phone, and informed the court that he had been contacted on October 15, 2009 by Nevada (I think) attorney Rob Graham who stated he was taking over the Catledge cases. Diaz said they've now withdrawn from all Catledge cases.
The judge took both the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Withdraw under advisement. I had requested that he rule on the Motion to Dismiss as a means to avoid delay if new counsel were to appear and want to contest that motion.
The judge is considering whether to grant the Motion to Withdraw now and then wait to rule on the Motion to Dismiss, or whether to rule on the Motion to Dismiss and then grant the Motion to Withdraw. I argued that the former exposes us to additional delay, and the latter will help move the case along.
The judge said he'd try to rule within 30 days. Once he signs the Order Granting Withdrawal, Catledge will have an additional 20 days to appear either through new counsel, or pro se.
Attorney Mike Diaz appeared by phone, and informed the court that he had been contacted on October 15, 2009 by Nevada (I think) attorney Rob Graham who stated he was taking over the Catledge cases. Diaz said they've now withdrawn from all Catledge cases.
The judge took both the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Withdraw under advisement. I had requested that he rule on the Motion to Dismiss as a means to avoid delay if new counsel were to appear and want to contest that motion.
The judge is considering whether to grant the Motion to Withdraw now and then wait to rule on the Motion to Dismiss, or whether to rule on the Motion to Dismiss and then grant the Motion to Withdraw. I argued that the former exposes us to additional delay, and the latter will help move the case along.
The judge said he'd try to rule within 30 days. Once he signs the Order Granting Withdrawal, Catledge will have an additional 20 days to appear either through new counsel, or pro se.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Motion to withdraw
On Friday, October 23, 2009, the two law firms representing James Catledge and the Impact business entities filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. They have set that motion to be heard on November 2, 2009, along with the other two pending motions.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Comments
We have changed the comment section to allow anonymous comments. Inappropriate comments will be deleted.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Motion for sanctions
The Department recently received responses to its discovery sent to defendants Catledge and the Impact companies. The Dept. does not believe the responses were adequate, and filed a motion asking the court for sanctions against those defendants for failure to answer adequately, and in the alternative if sanctions are not imposed, for an order requiring a more thorough response.
The hearing on this motion has been rescheduled for Monday, November 2, 2009, at 4:00 PM, during the same hearing as on the pending Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant Trevor Walker's Motion to Dismiss has been heard, and the Dept. filed its supplemental brief. We are awaiting the judge's ruling on this motion.
The hearing on this motion has been rescheduled for Monday, November 2, 2009, at 4:00 PM, during the same hearing as on the pending Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant Trevor Walker's Motion to Dismiss has been heard, and the Dept. filed its supplemental brief. We are awaiting the judge's ruling on this motion.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Motion denied
The Impact Defendants recently filed a Motion for Protective Order seeking to stay discovery the Department has filed. Their Motion to Dismiss the Department's verified complaint is pending, and will be heard on November 2, 2009, at 4:00 PM.
They argued that if they prevail on the Motion to Dismiss, then answering the discovery is an unnecessary burden. The judge denied their motion, and gave them 14 days to answer the Department's discovery.
Defendant Trevor Walker also argued his Motion to Dismiss. Because he had filed a new brief late Friday, the Judge gave the Department 14 days to file a response to the new brief. The judge will review the briefing and rule some time soon thereafter.
They argued that if they prevail on the Motion to Dismiss, then answering the discovery is an unnecessary burden. The judge denied their motion, and gave them 14 days to answer the Department's discovery.
Defendant Trevor Walker also argued his Motion to Dismiss. Because he had filed a new brief late Friday, the Judge gave the Department 14 days to file a response to the new brief. The judge will review the briefing and rule some time soon thereafter.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
New motion to dismiss
Catledge and Brimley's Motion for More Definite Statement was denied by Judge Wilper on July 13, 2009.
Their Motion to Seal was granted as to Exhibit V, a copy of a check, but was denied as to all else.
Catledge and Brimley, instead of filing an answer after their Motion for More Definite Statement was denied, have filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking to have the complaint dismissed. They argue that many of the counts are barred by a statute of limitations, that the Department failed to plead fraud with particularity, and that the Department failed to join certain indespensable parties. These motions have not yet been set for hearing.
Their Motion to Seal was granted as to Exhibit V, a copy of a check, but was denied as to all else.
Catledge and Brimley, instead of filing an answer after their Motion for More Definite Statement was denied, have filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking to have the complaint dismissed. They argue that many of the counts are barred by a statute of limitations, that the Department failed to plead fraud with particularity, and that the Department failed to join certain indespensable parties. These motions have not yet been set for hearing.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Pending motions
Defendants Thomson, Nagel and Cabezud have filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The Impact Defendants (Catledge, Brimley and the companies) have filed a Motion for More Definite Statement. A hearing on these motions was held on June 8th, 2009, and the Judge took them under advisement and should issue a ruling soon.
The Impact Defendants also moved to strike from the record certain documents filed by the Department in support of its opposition to the Motion for More Definite Statement. The Judge denied that motion.
The Impact Defendants have now filed a Motion to Seal the record so that the documents they sought to strike will not be available to the public. This motion has not yet been set for hearing.
The Impact Defendants also moved to strike from the record certain documents filed by the Department in support of its opposition to the Motion for More Definite Statement. The Judge denied that motion.
The Impact Defendants have now filed a Motion to Seal the record so that the documents they sought to strike will not be available to the public. This motion has not yet been set for hearing.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
May 28, 2009
All Defendants have now either accepted service, or have been served.
Trevor Walker, Barbara Nagel, Steve Cabezud and John Thomson are all appearing pro se, that is, without a lawyer. Nagel, Cabezud and Thomson have not filed an answer, but instead moved to have the complaint dismissed for failure to plead with particularity. In other words, they are saying the complaint did not contain enough information about what the Department believes they did wrong for them to form an intelligent answer. The hearing on that motion is set for June 1, 2009, at 3:00 PM, in Boise, in front of Judge Wilper.
James Catledge and David Brimley also have not answered. They have filed a motion for more definite statement. This is similar to the motions to dismiss, except that Catledge and Brimley are asking for more information, rather than trying to have the case dismissed. This motion is set for hearing on June 8, 2009, in Boise, before Judge Wilper.
Catledge and Brimley are represented by the Boise law firm of Nevin, Benjamin and McKay, and by the Miami law firm of Diaz, Reus & Targ.
Trevor Walker, Barbara Nagel, Steve Cabezud and John Thomson are all appearing pro se, that is, without a lawyer. Nagel, Cabezud and Thomson have not filed an answer, but instead moved to have the complaint dismissed for failure to plead with particularity. In other words, they are saying the complaint did not contain enough information about what the Department believes they did wrong for them to form an intelligent answer. The hearing on that motion is set for June 1, 2009, at 3:00 PM, in Boise, in front of Judge Wilper.
James Catledge and David Brimley also have not answered. They have filed a motion for more definite statement. This is similar to the motions to dismiss, except that Catledge and Brimley are asking for more information, rather than trying to have the case dismissed. This motion is set for hearing on June 8, 2009, in Boise, before Judge Wilper.
Catledge and Brimley are represented by the Boise law firm of Nevin, Benjamin and McKay, and by the Miami law firm of Diaz, Reus & Targ.
Monday, April 13, 2009
April 13, 2009
The State of Idaho filed a lawsuit in this case on February 20, 2009, naming the following as defendants:
Derek Elliott
James Catledge
David Brimley
Steve Cabezud
Barbara Nagel
John Thomson
Trevor Walker
Sun Village Juan Dolio Associates
Impact, and Impact Net Worth
Answers are due by the parties no later than April 20, 2009. David Brimley has not yet been served. The Department is attempting to locate him, and when he is located, he will be served and will have 20 days to answer.
The complaint can be viewed by clicking the link at the right.
Derek Elliott
James Catledge
David Brimley
Steve Cabezud
Barbara Nagel
John Thomson
Trevor Walker
Sun Village Juan Dolio Associates
Impact, and Impact Net Worth
Answers are due by the parties no later than April 20, 2009. David Brimley has not yet been served. The Department is attempting to locate him, and when he is located, he will be served and will have 20 days to answer.
The complaint can be viewed by clicking the link at the right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)