Carlyle et al v. Vaughn et al
||Dan Carlyle, Lori D. Atchley and Floyd K. Wilkinson
||Charles M. Vaughn, CM Vaughn, LLC, Livid Media, LLC, CM Vaughn Emerging Ventures, L.P., CM Vaughn Asset Management, L.P. and John Does 1-4
||April 7, 2008
||US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
||Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Office
||E. Clifton Knowles
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
||18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|November 19, 2008
ORDER: The Court held a contempt hearing in this case on September 18, 2008 23 to address the "Certification of Facts Regarding Possible Contempt" 16 issued by the Magistrate Judge concerning the dilatory actions of Plaintiffs' cou nsel, Mr. Kline Preston. Mr. Preston appeared at the hearing and apologized for his dilatory behavior, which he said was not intended to unnecessarily delay the discovery in the case or show disrespect for the Court. He stated that after Defendants C harles M. Vaughn and CM Vaughn, LLC filed bankruptcy and were dismissed from this case he did not think the case would proceed against the remaining Defendants. There was not a clear explanation for this conclusion, but Mr. Preston stated that Plaint iffs did want to proceed against the remaining Defendants. Also addressed at the hearing was the failure of Mr. David W. Graybeal, counsel for Defendant Livid Media, LLC ("Livid"), to employ local counsel as required under Local Rule 83.01( h). Mr. Graybeal was not present at the hearing. After the hearing, in its Order of October 1, 2008, the Court gave Mr. Graybeal ten (10) days within which to obtain local counsel and file a notice of appearance with the Clerk of this Court or sanct ions would be imposed, including striking the pleadings of Defendant Livid and vacating the privilege granted to Mr. Graybeal to practice before this Court pro hac vice 24 . Mr. Graybeal has not complied with the Court's Order nor has he given any explanation for his failure to comply. In light of the Court's prior admonitions, the Clerk is directed to strike the "Defenses and Answer" of Defendant Livid included in DE 9 . In addition, Mr. Graybeal's pro hac vice statu s is hereby VACATED. This case is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge to immediately hold a conference to determine the status of the Defendants in this case and whether Plaintiffs should move for entry of default against any Defendant. It appea rs the ICMO has not been served on the remaining Defendants. The Magistrate Judge should take control of the case and give instructions to the corporate and limited partnership Defendants that they must retain counsel, who should file notices of app earance within a specific deadline. The individual Defendants should be directed to retain counsel or notify the Court in writing within a specified period that they intend to proceed pro se. The present ICMO should be reviewed, revised as necessary, and entered so that this case can be moved forward in an orderly manner. Finally, sanctions should be imposed to assure compliance. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 11/19/08. (af)
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 Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?