Counsel Concerns

When Mason filed for a summary-judgment ruling that the defendants breached the counsel agreements, Meinhardt-Iturbe moved for additional time to respond. But the district court noted that 'approximately six months have passed since Defendant's last filing and Defendant has yet to file a formal opposition to Plaintiff's motion. Further, despite Defendant's protestations concerning his ability to receive documents, there is no evidence presented that service was improper or failed to occur in regard to any of the documents in this matter. Rather, Defendant merely contends that it takes a good while for him to receive the documents. The court, therefore, finds no grounds upon which a further extension would be warranted and turns to determining whether summary judgment is appropriate.'

The court then found: 'Plaintiff has provided competent and undisputed evidence showing that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into both the Consulting Agreement and the Retainer Agreement. Further, Plaintiff has presented evidence that those agreements were, and continue to be, valid and enforceable contracts. Next, Plaintiff has provided evidence, and the court concluded in [a] prior motion for summary judgment, that Plaintiff performed his obligations under the contracts. Third, Plaintiff had demonstrated he was not paid for his work, demonstrating a breach by Defendant.'