The first was a Response to Chisholm's "Leave To File" motion, and I went ahead and tacked it on as an addendum to the "Gross Untimeliness" post below.
The second was a Reply in support of DeForest's original motion for default. A Reply which may actually not even be needed; if Chisholm's "Leave To File" motion is rejected, then there'll technically be nothing to "reply" to...without "Leave To File," the Chisholm filing it replies to will have been rejected for being five months late.
So, you could say this is a "just in case" reply. It's 14 pages long with exhibits, and can be found here. But just to give you all a flavor for it's contents, here's a couple sample sentences:
"...It is difficult to sympathize with his “financial problems” when he has in essence stolen and/or fraudulently obtained Plaintiff’s money yet seemingly has no remorse. His lack of money appears to be because his ponzi type schemes have been exposed."Bardfield and Carver apparently didn't file any corresponding Response and Reply in their civil suit today, but I expect they probably will in the next couple days. I also expect that they too will find it difficult to sympathize with Chisholm's alleged problems, for very similar reasons.
Addendum 4/17/10: As expected, Plaintiffs Bardfield and Carver filed their corresponding Response and Reply yesterday. So now, we wait for the rulings on the plaintiffs' default motions, in both lawsuits. If they're granted, then it's game over: plaintiffs win, Chisholm loses. If they're not granted, then we play on.
And frankly, there's no way to tell how long this decision will take. Normally I would expect to hear something soon, however, history here argues otherwise. The fact is, this court could have ruled on these default motions months ago, but for some unknown reason did not. And if that "unknown reason" is still present, then when we'll finally get these rulings is anyone's guess.
Addendum 5/4/10: We have a split decision from the magistrate today on Chisholm’s leave-to-file motions, and the plaintiffs’ default motions.
Chisholm’s leave-to-file motions were rejected in both cases, the magistrate having found no good excuse for him to have been 5 months late in filing. Hence his tardy motions in opposition to the defaults were not considered (although, as we’ll soon see this will turn out to be a largely moot point).
In the Bardfield case, the plaintiff’s default motion against Johnny Chisholm was denied. You can read the full decision here; it seems the motion was denied on some fairly technical procedural grounds (i.e., “…the docket does not reflect that Plaintiffs ever filed a motion to compel discovery” and “[i]n this case, Plaintiffs did not request, and the clerk has not entered, a default pursuant to Rule 55(a)”).
In the DeForest case, the default against Johnny Chisholm personally was denied for pretty much the same technical procedural reasons as above. However, the default against Chisholm’s old OMP Paris company, Johnny Chisholm Global Events, was granted.
The full decision is here. In approving the default, the magistrate found Chisholm’s company liable for 1) fraud in the inducement; 2) conspiracy to defraud; and 3) unjust enrichment, and awarded Ray DeForest damages in the amount of $150,000.
It should be noted that these decisions by the magistrate are actually recommendations. The final decision is in the hands of the district court judge, and both parties have 14 days to file objections to the recommendations before they are submitted to him for his consideration.
One other thing that happened today in the DeForest case, was that monetary santions were imposed on Johnny Chisholm for discovery violations. That filing can be found here; as you can see, Chisholm was ordered to pay Ray DeForest $2,415.00 in attorney fees incurred in being forced to file two Motions to Compel against him.
Addendum 6/4/10: The default recommnedations were approved by the district judge today, so they are now official:
And here's the default judgment against Chisholm's OMW Paris company for fraud in the inducement, conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment:
The cases continue on against all the other defendants.
No comments:
Post a Comment