United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
REACT PRESENTS, INC., an Illinois Corporation, CLUBTIX, INC., an Illinois Corporation, LUCAS KING and JEFFERY CALLAHAN, Plaintiffs,
ROBERT F. X. SILLERMAN, Defendant.
PRESENTS, INC., an Illinois Corporation, CLUBTIX, INC., an
Illinois Corporation, LUCAS KING and JEFFERY CALLAHAN One of
Their Attorneys James V. Garvey, Joshua A. Dunn, Vedder Price
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
React Presents, Inc., Clubtix, Inc. (the “React
Entities”), Lucas King
(“King”) and Jeffery Callahan
“Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys,
respectfully move the Court for an Order entering judgment
against Defendant Robert F. X. Sillerman
(“Sillerman”). In support of their
Motion, Plaintiffs state as follows:
August 15, 2017, the Court referred this case to Magistrate
Judge Finnegan for discovery supervision, including
resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash and for
Protective Order, Sillerman's Motion to Compel, and
third-party LiveStyle, Inc.'s
(“LiveStyle”) subsequently-filed Motion
to Quash (together, the “Discovery
Motions”). [Doc. No. 59.]
After supplementing the briefs, the parties appeared before
Judge Finnegan on September 20, 2017 for hearing on the
Discovery Motions. Among other things, Judge Finnegan ordered
the parties to continue to meet and confer regarding the
document requests at issue, and to file a joint status report
on or before October 4, 2017 identifying any remaining
disputes. [Doc. No. 74.]
contemplated by Judge Finnegan's September 20 Order, the
parties sought and received an additional week, through and
including October 11, 2017, to file their joint status
October 11, 2017, Sillerman's counsel informed
Plaintiffs' counsel via e-mail that, in light of facts
discovered through review of records provided by Stout and
BDO Seidman, Sillerman would be withdrawing his Motion to
Compel, thereby mooting Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash.
Later that day, in lieu of the joint status report, Sillerman
submitted a letter to Judge Finnegan to the same effect.
[Doc. No. 76.]
Sillerman's counsel's October 11, 2017 e-mail also
proposed “working out a proposed form of judgment to
end the case, ” which the parties further discussed and
ultimately accomplished over the following days. True and
correct copies of all correspondence between Plaintiffs'
counsel and Sillerman's counsel from October 11, 2017 to
the present are attached hereto as Group Exhibit
October 13, 2017, based on representations by Sillerman's
counsel that the parties would seek to reach an agreement on
a stipulated judgment, Judge Finnegan entered a Minute Order
terminating the referral and returning the case to this
Court. [Doc. No. 77.]
Shortly thereafter, on October 16, 2017, at the suggestion of
Sillerman's counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel prepared and
circulated a draft [Proposed] Final Judgment and accompanying
Stipulation for Sillerman's consideration and prompt
submission to this Court. See Group Ex. A.
Sillerman's counsel made only one change, which
Plaintiffs' counsel accepted before recirculating.
Id. For the last two weeks, Sillerman's counsel
has been attempting to reach his client to discuss a proposed
payment plan and get final sign off on the Stipulation and
proposed Judgment. Id.
light of Sillerman's prior agreement to entry of a
judgment,  as well as Plaintiffs' concerns about
the passage of additional time in light of the parties'
history and Sillerman's complicated financial situation,
the Court should enter the [Proposed] Judgment Order attached
hereto as Exhibit B now, with the payment
schedule and other post-judgment matters potentially to be
worked out by the parties in the near term.
the event Sillerman executes the proposed Stipulation for
entry of judgment before the presentment hearing on the
instant motion, the parties will promptly submit the same and
contact the Court to request that the hearing be taken off
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (a) enter the
[Proposed] Judgment Order attached as Exhibit B; and (b)
granting such other and ...