COGAN v. SCOTT et al
| JOSHUA E COGAN and JOSHUA E. COGAN |
| SHELDON A. SCOTT, J. DUBOIS ARTS, LLC, JARVIS S. DUBOIS, LEIGH M. CONNER, CONNER CONTEMPORARY ART, INC., JAMIE L. SMITH, SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC and JARVIS SEBASTIAN DUBOIS |
| 1:2019cv01797 |
| June 19, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Timothy J Kelly |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. § 101 |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 34
MEMORANDUM re Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,,,,,, by SHELDON A. SCOTT, SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC. (Bond, Johnnie)
|
|
Filing 33
Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to J. DUBOIS ARTS, LLC. (tth)
|
|
Filing 29
Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to JARVIS SEBASTIAN DUBOIS. (tth) (Main Document 29 replaced on 8/14/2019 to correct case caption) (ztth).
|
|
Filing 28
ANSWER to Complaint, COUNTERCLAIM against JOSHUA E. COGAN by SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC, SHELDON A. SCOTT. (tth)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants Sheldon Scott Studios, LLC, (SSSL) and Sheldon A. Scott's #24 Motion for Reconsideration. Courts have broad discretion to revisit any interlocutory order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) "as justice requires." See Cobell v. Norton, 355 F. Supp. 2d 531, 539 (D.D.C. 2005). Here, in light of Defendants SSSL and Scott filing the correct version of their answer, and upon consideration of Defendants' counsel's additional representations made in the motion, including the recent move to a new office, and the minimal prejudice to Plaintiff, the Court finds that reconsideration of its prior order is appropriate and that Defendants SSSL and Scott have demonstrated the requisite excusable neglect. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants SSSL and Scott's #24 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED and that they are provided an extension of time to file their answer, commensurate their motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court is directed to docket Defendants SSSL and Scott's proposed answer, attached to their motion as ECF No. 24-2, as an answer to the #1 Complaint filed as of August 12, 2019. Nevertheless, the Court finds Plaintiff's counsel's representation that Defendants' counsel never reached out to her prior to filing this motion, despite explicitly stating that he "conferred with Plaintiff and [that] Plaintiff does not consent to the relief requested," troubling to say the least. At best, it was a misunderstanding of the requirements of Local Civil Rule 7(m) and a reference to Defendants' conferral regarding the prior motion; at worst, it was a false statement to the Court. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that counsel for Defendants SSSL and Scott shall, no later than August 19, 2019, show cause in writing why that statement did not violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/14/2019. (lctjk2)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for an Initial Scheduling Conference on September 11, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall meet, confer, and submit a joint report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 16.3. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/14/2019. (lctjk2)
|
|
Filing 27
Memorandum in opposition to re #24 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,,, , #26 Supplemental MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,,, filed by JOSHUA E. COGAN. (White, Sharmian)
|
|
Filing 26
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM re #24 Motion for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File, by SHELDON A. SCOTT, SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC (Bond, Johnnie); Modified event and text on 8/13/2019 (tth).
|
|
MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his response to Defendants Sheldon Scott Studios, LLC, and Sheldon A. Scott's #24 Motion for Reconsideration no later than today, August 13, 2019. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/13/2019. (lctjk2)
|
|
Filing 25
Memorandum in opposition to re #21 MOTION for Entry of Default re Sheldon Scott and Sheldon Scott Studios filed by SHELDON A. SCOTT, SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit August 8 Email to Plaintiff)(Bond, Johnnie)
|
|
Filing 24
MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,,, by SHELDON A. SCOTT, SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit August 8 Email to Plaintiff, #2 Exhibit Final Answer to Complaint)(Bond, Johnnie)
|
|
Filing 23
Memorandum in opposition to re #22 MOTION for Leave to File Answer One Day out of Time Nunc Pro Tunc filed by JOSHUA E. COGAN. (White, Sharmian)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER striking Defendants Sheldon Scott Studios, LLC, and Sheldon A. Scott's #20 Answer and denying their #22 Motion for Leave to File. By Minute Order dated July 19, 2019, the Court ordered Defendants Sheldon Scott Studios, LLC, ("SSSL") and Sheldon A. Scott to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's #1 Complaint no later than August 7, 2019. On August 8, 2019, without seeking leave of Court, they filed their answer. Only after Plaintiff moved for entry of default did they file a motion for leave to file their answer out of time. Because Defendants SSSL and Scott initially filed their #20 Answer out of time and without leave of Court, it is hereby ORDERED that their answer is STRICKEN. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Defendants SSSL and Scott's #20 Answer from the record. As to their motion for leave to file, Defendants' counsel represents both that he "endeavored" to meet the August 7 deadline but was unable to "due to other deadlines in other legal matters" and that he "inadvertently calendared the deadline for August 8." Not only do those explanations appear contradictory, but they, at least currently, lack the necessary specificity to demonstrate the requisite excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). Moreover, the answer Defendants SSSL and Scott attached to their motion includes two counterclaims seemingly lifted from a pleading in a separate case involving separate parties. And thus the Court cannot be assured that Defendants SSSL and Scott have made a good faith effort to sincerely respond to Plaintiff's complaint. For these reasons, it is further ORDERED that Defendants SSSL and Scott's #22 Motion for Leave to File is DENIED. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/12/2019. (lctjk2)
|
|
Filing 32
AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFAULT by JOSHUA E. COGAN. (tth)
|
|
Filing 31
MILITARY AFFIDAVIT by JOSHUA E. COGAN. (tth)
|
|
Filing 30
AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFAULT by JOSHUA E. COGAN. (tth)
|
|
Filing 22
MOTION for Leave to File Answer One Day out of Time Nunc Pro Tunc by SHELDON A. SCOTT, SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Answer, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bond, Johnnie)
|
|
Filing 21
MOTION for Entry of Default re Sheldon Scott and Sheldon Scott Studios by JOSHUA E. COGAN (Attachments: #1 Affidavit in Support of Request for Entry of Default Against Sheldon Scott and Sheldon Scott Studios, LLC, #2 Affidavit Military Affidavit re Def. Sheldon Scott)(White, Sharmian)
|
|
Filing 20
STRICKEN PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER FILED ON 8/12/2019..... ANSWER to Complaint , COUNTERCLAIM against JOSHUA E. COGAN by SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC, SHELDON A. SCOTT.(Bond, Johnnie); Modified on 8/13/2019 (tth).
|
|
Filing 19
MOTION for Entry of Default re J. DuBois Arts, LLC and Jarvis S. DuBois by JOSHUA E. COGAN (Attachments: #1 Affidavit in Support of Entry of Default Against J DuBois Arts, LLC, #2 Affidavit in Support of Entry of Default Against Jarvis S. DuBois, #3 Affidavit Military Affidavit re Jarvis S. DuBois)(White, Sharmian)
|
|
Filing 18
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by CONNER CONTEMPORARY ART, INC.. (Hathway, John)
|
|
Filing 17
ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by LEIGH M. CONNER, JAMIE L. SMITH.(Hathway, John)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants Sheldon A. Scott and Sheldon Scott Studios, LLC's #16 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED, for good cause shown, that Defendants Sheldon A. Scott and Sheldon Scott Studios, LLC's motion is GRANTED. Those two defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint no later than August 7, 2019. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 7/19/2019. (lctjk2)
|
|
Filing 16
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint, Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by SHELDON A. SCOTT, SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bond, Johnnie)
|
|
Filing 15
NOTICE of Appearance by Johnnie Daniel Bond, Jr on behalf of SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC (Bond, Johnnie)
|
|
Filing 14
NOTICE of Appearance by Johnnie Daniel Bond, Jr on behalf of SHELDON A. SCOTT (Bond, Johnnie)
|
|
Filing 13
LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by CONNER CONTEMPORARY ART, INC. (Hathway, John)
|
|
Filing 12
ANSWER to Complaint by CONNER CONTEMPORARY ART, INC..(Hathway, John)
|
|
Filing 11
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. JARVIS SEBASTIAN DUBOIS served on 7/13/2019, answer due 8/3/2019 (White, Sharmian)
|
|
Filing 10
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. J. DUBOIS ARTS, LLC served on 7/13/2019, answer due 8/3/2019 (White, Sharmian)
|
|
Filing 9
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. LEIGH M. CONNER served on 7/1/2019, answer due 7/22/2019 (White, Sharmian)
|
|
Filing 8
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. JAMIE L. SMITH served on 7/1/2019, answer due 7/22/2019 (White, Sharmian)
|
|
Filing 7
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC served on 6/26/2019, answer due 7/17/2019 (White, Sharmian)
|
|
Filing 6
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. SHELDON A. SCOTT served on 6/26/2019, answer due 7/17/2019 (White, Sharmian)
|
|
Filing 5
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CONNER CONTEMPORARY ART, INC. served on 6/26/2019, answer due 7/17/2019 (White, Sharmian)
|
|
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re #4 Certificate of Service was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading using the "Service of Process" category. (jf)
|
|
Filing 4
ENTERED IN ERROR.....CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by JOSHUA E COGAN re Service on ConnerSmith. (White, Sharmian) Modified on 7/1/2019 (jf).
|
|
Filing 3
SUMMONS (6) Issued Electronically as to LEIGH M. CONNER, CONNER CONTEMPORARY ART, INC., JARVIS SEBASTIAN DUBOIS, SHELDON A. SCOTT, SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC, JAMIE L. SMITH. (Attachment: #1 Notice and Consent)(zeg)
|
|
Case Assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly. (zeg)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JOSHUA E COGAN (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support)(White, Sharmian) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/20/2019: #2 Text of Proposed Order) (zeg).
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against LEIGH M. CONNER, CONNER CONTEMPORARY ART, INC., JARVIS S. DUBOIS, J. DUBOIS ARTS, LLC, SHELDON A. SCOTT, SHELDON SCOTT STUDIOS, LLC, JAMIE L. SMITH ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-6200553) filed by JOSHUA E COGAN. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Civil Cover Sheet, #5 Summons Conner Contemporary, #6 Summons Conner, #7 Summons J Dubois, #8 Summons Sheldon Scott, #9 Summons Jamie Smith, #10 Summons Sheldon Scott Art, #11 Application for PI, #12 Memorandum in Support, #13 Supplement Form AO 121, #14 Text of Proposed Order)(White, Sharmian) (Attachment 4 replaced on 6/20/2019) (zeg).
|
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 District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
