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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
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 Diaz said they've now withdrawn from all Catledge cases.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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)