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.
Monday, August 31, 2009
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.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Last known whereabouts
There are lots of interesting comments piling up under the previous post, some obviously from people in the know.
Does anyone know where Derek Elliott and James Catledge are? Where do they live? Where are their offices located? Are they there now, or have they been there recently?
Does anyone know where Derek Elliott and James Catledge are? Where do they live? Where are their offices located? Are they there now, or have they been there recently?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
What this case is about
The Department began an investigation during November 2006. The inquiry focused on several issues including a) the offer and sale of investment interests sold in luxury resorts located in the Dominican Republic, b) the disclosures made to investors in the resort, and c) mortgage loan origination activities.
After lengthy negotiations, EMI Sun Village, Inc., Sun Village Juan Dolio, Inc., and Sun Village Juan Dolio Associates, LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the Idaho Department of Finance on July 19, 2007. James Catledge and Impact, Inc. entered into a separate settlement agreement with the Department on July 19, 2007. In part, the agreements call for the offer of rescission (refunds) to affected Idaho investors.
While the settlement orders called for rescission to be made by December 15, 2007, no such rescission offers were made until late in the first quarter of 2008. Few investors actually received refund payments as expected. The Department’s interest in this matter has not concluded and the Department is considering what further action may be necessary.
After lengthy negotiations, EMI Sun Village, Inc., Sun Village Juan Dolio, Inc., and Sun Village Juan Dolio Associates, LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the Idaho Department of Finance on July 19, 2007. James Catledge and Impact, Inc. entered into a separate settlement agreement with the Department on July 19, 2007. In part, the agreements call for the offer of rescission (refunds) to affected Idaho investors.
While the settlement orders called for rescission to be made by December 15, 2007, no such rescission offers were made until late in the first quarter of 2008. Few investors actually received refund payments as expected. The Department’s interest in this matter has not concluded and the Department is considering what further action may be necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)