Bourret v. Aspect Energy, LLC et al
Plaintiff: Jacques Bourret
Defendant: Aspect Energy, LLC, Aspect Holdings, LLC, Aspect Manangement Corp. and Aspect Energy Int'l, LLC
Case Number: 1:2012cv03320
Filed: December 20, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Denver Office
County: XX Outside US
Presiding Judge: Richard P. Matsch
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 3, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 146 ORDER Granting 145 Joint MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice: The above-captioned action and all claims asserted therein are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Each of the parties shall bear his or its own attorneys fees and costs in connection with this action, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 10/3/2014. (jsmit)
July 22, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 138 Courtroom Minutes for Pretrial Conference held on 7/22/2014before Judge Richard P. Matsch. ORDERED: Defendant's Renewed Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Douglas Osterhus 135 , is granted in part with respect to topic number four (contract ual sequence/ownership) and denied with respect to topic numbers one and two and limited with respect to topic number three to permit identifying areas of maps/blocks, as stated on record. Ruling does not preclude counsel agreeing to a stipulation on topic number four. Stipulation regarding limiting jury to Denver Metro counties due by July 29, 2014. Proposed jury instructions, proposed voir dire, proposed agreed statement of case, final lists of exhibits and witnesses and alphabetical combined list of witnesses and business entities are to be submitted directly to chambers in paper byOctober 6, 2014. Two week jury trial set October 20, 2014. Counsel to request, if necessary, a trial preparation conference.FTR: K. Terasaki. (jsmit)
June 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 134 ORDER Setting Pretrial Conference for 7/22/2014 at 11:00 AM in Conference Room, Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/17/2014 in paper form directly to chambers by 4:00 p.m., and lead counsel present in person, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 6/18/2014. (jsmit)
June 10, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 133 ORDER ON POST-HEARING BRIEFING : the word "project" in the parties Consulting Agreement is defined as explained above [re Doc. 108]; Aspect's Motion for Reconsideration Concerning Plaintiff's Fraud Claims [Doc. 109] is denied; B ourret's damages calculation will be limited to the net profits received by Aspect from the sale of its interest in the Atrush Project [re Doc. 111]; Aspect's Motion for Separate Trials on Liability and Damages [Doc. 127] is denied; Bourre t's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Exclusion of Testimony of Douglas Osterhus [Doc. 131] is granted, subject to the condition that Osterhus prepare a new report and be subject to another deposition, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 6/10/2014. (jsmit )
May 5, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 114 ORDER Granting 112 Motion to to Restrict Public Access to Plaintiff's Damages Brief Regarding the Atrush Project and all exhibit re 111 : Level 1, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 5/5/2014.(jsmit)
April 22, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 106 Courtroom Minutes for Motion Hearing held on 4/22/2014 before Judge Richard P. Matsch. ORDERED: Defendants' Motion to Strike Jury Demand 86 , is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Jury Demand 95 , is moot. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Douglas Osterhus 92 , is granted. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Jeff Compton 93 , is granted in part and denied in part as stated on record (full scope of admissibility to be determined after further briefing. Defendants' Motion to Strike Designation of Plaintiff Jacques Bourret as a Non-Retained Expert Witness 94 , is granted in part as Mr. Bourret will not be d esignated as an expert and denied with respect to all further testimony from Mr. Bourret as to be ruled on during the course of taking his testimony. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss 90 , is granted in part, denied in part and withdrawn (by coun sel) in part as stated on record. Counsel shall file briefs on contract interpretation issues. Defendants' motion on fraud claim and "what is the project" is due by May 2, 2014. Plaintiff's motion on "future cash flow" is due by May 2, 2014. Parties' responses due 10 days after filings of motions.FTR: K. Terasaki. (jsmit)
January 24, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 88 ORDER Setting Pretrial Conference for 3/20/2014 at 02:00 PM in Conference Room, Proposed Pretrial Order due by 3/13/2014, delivered in paper form directly to chambers by 4:00 p.m., and lead counsel present in person, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 1/24/2014. (rpmcd)
December 5, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 81 ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint to Add Claims for Fraud and Exemplary Damages and the Second AmendedComplaint tendered [32-1] therewith is ordered filed, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 12/5/2013.(rpmcd)
November 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 80 ORDER On Defendants' 46 Motion for Summary Judgment: is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs unjust enrichment/quantum meruit claim is dismissed with prejudice, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 11/19/2013.(rpmcd)
November 13, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER denying 28 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production Due to Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege and Request for In Camera Review Based on the Crime Fraud Exception, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 11/13/2013.(ervsl, )
October 31, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 71 Courtroom Minutes for Motions Hearing held on 10/31/2013 before Judge Richard P. Matsch. ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production Due to Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege and Request For in Camera Review Based on the Crime-Fra ud Exception 25 / 28 , is taken under advisement. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatory Answers 38 / 39 , is denied in part (production of AOL account emails that have not been already produced as discussed on record). Defendant's Oral motion to seal/restrict transcript of this hearing by Mr. Koclanes is denied. FTR: K. Terasaki. (rpmcd)
October 10, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER FOR HEARING re: 39 : a hearing will be held at a time to be scheduled with counsel, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 10/10/2013. (rpmcd)
October 9, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER FOR HEARING re 28 : a hearing will be held at a time to be scheduled with counsel at which the Court will hear the issues concerning waiver, inadvertent disclosure and in camera review and the defendants shall have available at the hearing the disputed documents giving the Court an opportunity to proceed with an in camera review at that time, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 10/9/2013. (rpmcd)
April 30, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER Granting 20 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint re [20-1], by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/30/2013.(rpmcd)
April 2, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 17 Stipulation and PROTECTIVE ORDER, signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/2/2013. (rpmcd )
February 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER Setting Scheduling Conference for 4/2/2013 at 10:30 AM in Conference Room, proposed order (original only) on paper, shall be submitted directly to chambers by 4:00 p.m. on March 28, 2013, lead counsel present in person and no parties permitted, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 2/25/2013. (rpmcd )
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bourret v. Aspect Energy, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Aspect Energy, LLC
Represented By: Peter George Koclanes
Represented By: Gordon W. Netzorg
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Aspect Holdings, LLC
Represented By: Peter George Koclanes
Represented By: Gordon W. Netzorg
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Aspect Manangement Corp.
Represented By: Peter George Koclanes
Represented By: Gordon W. Netzorg
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Aspect Energy Int'l, LLC
Represented By: Peter George Koclanes
Represented By: Gordon W. Netzorg
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jacques Bourret
Represented By: Pamela Lunn Hohensee
Represented By: Frances A. Koncilja
Represented By: Wynn Bertine McCloskey
Represented By: Richard Paul Yetter
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?