Gordon v. Impulse Marketing Group Inc Doc.

102
Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS Document 102 Filed 10/06/2005

1
2 Floyd E. Ivey
Liebler, Ivey & Connor, P.S.
3 1141 N. Edison, Suite C
P.O. Box 6125
4 Kennewick, WA 99336
Telephone (509) 735-3581
5 Fax (509) 735-3585
6
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8
9 JAMES S. GORDON, JR., an individual ) NO. CV-04-5125-FVS
residing in Benton County, Washington,
)
10 )
Plaintiffs ) DEFENDANT’S
11 ) MEMORANDUM
vs. ) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
12 ) FOR AUTHORITY TO
IMPULSE MARKETING GROUP, INC., ) RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S
13 a Nevada Corporation, ) STATEMENT OF MATERIAL
) FACT AND FOR
14 Defendants ) RESCHEDULING OF
___________________________________ ) TELEPHONIC ARGUMENT
15 IMPULSE MARKETING GROUP, INC., )
)
16 Third-Party Plaintiff, )
)
17 vs. )
)
18 BONNIE GORDON, JAMES S. GORDON, )
III, JONATHAN GORDON, JAMILA )
19 GORDON, ROBERT PRITCHETT and )
EMILY ABBEY, )
20 )
Third-Party Defendants. )
21 ___________________________________ )
22 Defendant counsel Floyd E. Ivey and Plaintiff counsel Mr. McKinley spoke
23 by telephone on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 where Mr. McKinley agreed for the
24 scheduling of this motion for Monday, October 10, 2005 without requiring the filing
25 of a Motion to Expedite.
26 Plaintiff did not file a LR 56.1 Statement of Material Fact Relied Upon when
27
Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Authority to LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE
28 Respond to Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Fact and for Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 6125
Rescheduling of Telephonic Argument- 1. Kennewick, Washington 99336-0125
Z:\IPClient\ImpulseMarketingGroup v. Gordon\Pleadings\Plaintiff Motion for (509) 735-3581
S u m m a r y
Judgment\DefendantMotionTelephonicOralArgument\MotionRespondStatement
M a t e r i a l F a c t \ D e f e n d a n t M e m o r a n d u m
RespondToStatementMaterialFact.051006.wpd
Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS Document 102 Filed 10/06/2005

1 Plaintiff filed its Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative Motion for Summary
2 Judgment. When Defendant Responded to Plaintiff’s Motion there was no
3 Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Fact. Plaintiff has filed its “REPLY” and
4 additionally has filed “LR 56.1 STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATED TO
5 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT” on
6 September 30, 2005.
7 This matter is set for argument October 12, 2005. Defendant moves for
8 authority to file a Response to Plaintiff’s STATEMENT OF FACTS and for the
9 rescheduling of the Telephonic Argument set for October 12, 2005. This motion
10 is based on LR 56.1 and Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of the Motion for
11 Authority to Respond.
12 LR 56.1(a) requires that:
13 Any party filing a motion for Summary Judgment shall set forth separately
14 from the memorandum of law, and in full, the specific facts relied upon in
15 support of the motion. The specific facts shall be set forth in serial fashion
16 and not in narrative form. As to each fact, the statement shall refer to the
17 specific portion of the record where the fact is found. ...The specific
18 portions of the record relied upon shall be attached to the statement of
19 material facts.
20
21 LR 56.1(b) requires the party opposing the Motion for Summary Judgment
22 to set forth “...the specific facts which the opposing party asserts establishes a
23 genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment....” LR 56.1(c)
24 allows the moving party to file a statement establishing the absence of genuine
25 material fact disputes.
26 Defendant requests hearing of this motion without oral argument on
27
Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Authority to LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE
28 Respond to Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Fact and for Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 6125
Rescheduling of Telephonic Argument- 2. Kennewick, Washington 99336-0125
Z:\IPClient\ImpulseMarketingGroup v. Gordon\Pleadings\Plaintiff Motion for (509) 735-3581
S u m m a r y
Judgment\DefendantMotionTelephonicOralArgument\MotionRespondStatement
M a t e r i a l F a c t \ D e f e n d a n t M e m o r a n d u m
RespondToStatementMaterialFact.051006.wpd
 Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS Document 102 Filed 10/06/2005

1 Monday, October 10, 2005 and, assuming the Motion is granted, requests 14 days
2 from the date the order is entered to provide its LR 56.1 (b) Response. Defendant
3 requests the rescheduling of the telephonic argument to such date which will allow
4 Plaintiff ample time for Reply.
5 DATED this 6th day of October, 2005.
6 LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE
7 By /s/ FLOYD E. IVEY
FLOYD E. IVEY, WSBA #6888
8 Local Counsel for Defendant
9 I hereby certify that on October 6, 2005, I electronically filed Defendant’s
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Authority to Respond to Plaintiff’s
10 Statement of Material Facts and for Rescheduling Telephonic Argument with
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will send notification of
11 such filing to Douglas E. McKinley, Jr., Peter J. Glantz and Sean A. Moynihan. I
hereby certify that I have served the foregoing to the following non-CM/ECF
12 participants by other means: Bonnie Gordon, Jonathan Gordon, James S. Gordon,
III and Robert Prichett. I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing to the
13 following persons who are non-CM/ECF participants named in this lawsuit, but
who have not yet been served or entered an appearance in this lawsuit by other
14 means: Emily Abbey and Jamila Gordon.
15
S/ FLOYD E. IVEY
16 FLOYD E. IVEY
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Authority to LIEBLER, IVEY, CONNOR, BERRY & ST. HILAIRE
28 Respond to Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Fact and for Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 6125
Rescheduling of Telephonic Argument- 3. Kennewick, Washington 99336-0125
Z:\IPClient\ImpulseMarketingGroup v. Gordon\Pleadings\Plaintiff Motion for (509) 735-3581
S u m m a r y
Judgment\DefendantMotionTelephonicOralArgument\MotionRespondStatement
M a t e r i a l F a c t \ D e f e n d a n t M e m o r a n d u m
RespondToStatementMaterialFact.051006.wpd