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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)