Bardfield and Carver Ask For Their Deposit Back

Well, after an extremely long period of no activity at all, we finally have a new development in the Bardfield case: The plaintiffs are requesting that their bond money be returned by the court.

If you recall, the plaintiffs in this case had to post a $200,000 bond back in June of 2009 in order to get the original TRO (and later preliminary injunction) against Chisholm, attaching and freezing his various OMW bank accounts. And that money has been sitting in the Court Registry ever since.

And now, they'd like it returned (or, at least dramatically reduced). Noting the very long time it's taken the court to rule on the latest batch of default motions:

"...Plaintiffs respectfully point out that this Court has not disposed of the pending Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant, even though such motion was reinstated over three months ago."

...they further point out that since a) OMW is now over, and "the event was a financial disaster"; and b) "Defendant Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC is now defunct and liquidating through the bankruptcy court;" and c) there is relatively little in the frozen accounts, because Chisholm violated the TRO by "not using banks to avoid the injunction"; and d) Chisholm is now essentially ignoring the lawsuit, "thumbing his nose" and letting it slide into default...there is no longer any need for a bond in this case. The purpose of an injunction bond, after all, is to protect the interests of the defendant in case the injunction is wrongly granted; and in this case, Chisholm doesn't have any interests left to protect, for reasons that have nothing to do with this injunction.

Here's the full copy of this new motion:





Sorry for the paucity of posts in recent months folks, but the simple reason for that is that prior to this latest filing...not much has been happening in the various Chisholm cases. For example, in the DeForest case Bobby Warner was finally served. She filed an answer generally denying most every allegation (thereby making it generally uninteresting); the most revealing aspect of which was probably the fact that she filed it pro se (ie, without an attorney).

In the latest crisis involving the Emerald City bankruptcy, the court gave Emerald City one more chance to come up with an approvable Chapter 11 plan. And a new plan was indeed submitted, sweetening the deal for the recalcitrant creditors in that case; it remains to be seen if it'll be approved.

And in the OMW bankruptcy case, there has been no activity in the case file there at all, since Universal Orlando filed it's claim. Which is not to say the case has been inactive; there HAS been some stuff going on, but behind the scenes. Once that (rather comedic, I must say) activity is reflected in the filings, I'll post about it here.

So, what's been going on as of late has either been too minor or too incomplete to warrant a new post (or even an update). Perhaps this new motion in the Bardfield case will rustle the tree branches a bit, and get things going again.

Addendum 3/5/10: And we have a decision! Motion is temporarily denied for a technical deficiency...BUT once that is corrected, the court indicates that it's inclined to reduce the bond from $200,000 to $1,000. "Additionally, at the earliest possible time, this court anticipates entering a separate Report and Recommendation to the district court on Plaintiffs’ motion for
default judgment against Defendant Chisholm."