Date: 06-11-2015

Case Style: Isaias C. Garcia v. Preferred Waste Solutions, LLC

Case Number: CJ-2012-3698

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Andrew Turner and Ray Patton

Defendant's Attorney: Bill Anderson, Sam Bratton, Norman Bryan, David Herrold for Oklahoma Ordnance Works Authority

David Bryant, John Dale and Brandon Bickle for Adam Koch and Southbury, LLC

Robert Ivy for Machinex Technologies, Inc.

Brian Rayment for Billy Waye Graddy, jr.

Description: Tulsa, OK - Isaias C. Garcia, Vinola Garcia and Phoenix Industrial Insulation Corp sued Preferred Waste Solutions, LLC, Preferred Waste Solutions Plant No. 1, LLC, Dale Wesley Ogden, Ogden Incorporated, P.C., Ogden & Showalter, PLLC, Raymond Andrew All, Bradley Allen Hall, Billy Waye Graddy, Jr., UP Cycled Materials GP, LLC, Larry D. Casey, Adam Kock and Southbury, LLc on fraud, replevin and breach of contraCT theories claiming:

1. Plaintiffs lsaias C. Garcia and Vinola Garcia are long-time residents of Mounds, Tulsa County, Oklahoma who own and operate Phoenix Industrial Insulation Corp., an Oklahoma corporation, in Mounds, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant Dale Wesley Ogden is a certified public accountant practicing in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Defendants Ogden Incorporated P.C. and Ogden & Showalter PLLC are Oklahoma corporations with their principal places of business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and are public accounting firms in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Defendant Dale Wesley Ogden is a member of these firms. (Defendants Dale Wesley Ogden, Ogden & Showalter, PLLC and Ogden Incorporated P.C. are collectively referred to as “Ogden.”)
3. Defendants Preferred Waste Solutions, LLC and Preferred Waste Solutions Plant No. 1, LLC (collectively referred to as “Preferred Waste”) are both Oklahoma limited liability companies formed on December 29, 2010 and are now both shown as inactive in the records of the Oklahoma Secretary of State.
4. At all material times to this Petition, Preferred Waste was controlled by Defendants Bradley Allen Hall, Billy Wayne Graddy, Jr. Larry D. Casey, and possibly by other defendants herein.
5. Defendant Raymond Andrew Hall (hereinafter, “Raymond Hall”) was at all material times to this Petition, a registered representative and a registered investment adviser representative for a brokerage firm and investment advisory firm located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Raymond Hall was the account representative and investment adviser for the Plaintiffs. Raymond Hall resides in Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
6. Defendant Bradley Allen Hall (hereinafter, “Bradley Hall”) is a manager and owner of Preferred Waste. He is also the son of Raymond Hall. Together with Defendants Billy Wayne Graddy, Jr. and Larry D. Casey, he was responsible for all actions of Preferred Waste, including its solicitation and sale of securities to the Plaintiffs and other investors. Bradley Hall resides in Pryor, Mayes County, Oklahoma.
7. Defendant Billy Wayne Graddy, Jr. (hereinafter, “Graddy”) is a manager and owner of Preferred Waste. Together with Defendants Bradley Allen Hall and Larry D. Casey, he was responsible for all actions of Preferred Waste, including its solicitation and sale of securities to the Plaintiffs and other investors, Graddy resides in Collinsville, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
8. Defendant Up-Cycled Materials GP, LLC (hereinafter, “Up-Cycled Materials”) is a Texas corporation qualified to do business in Oklahoma with its principal place of business in Broken Arrow, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and which is now shown as inactive in the records of the Oklahoma Secretary of State.
9. Defendant Larry D. Casey (hereinafter, “Casey”) is a manager and owner of Preferred Waste. Together with Bradley Hall and Graddy, he was responsible for all actions of Preferred Waste, including its solicitation and sale of securities to the Plaintiffs and other investors.
10. The Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the amount in controversy exceeds this Court’s minimum jurisdictional requirements. Venue is proper under 12 U.S. § 133, 134, 139, 143 because all or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma; because the Defendants solicited the transaction in whole or in part in Tulsa County, made the subject of the case in Tulsa County, or otherwise facilitated their
wrongful actions in Tulsa County; and because the Plaintiffs and many of the Defendants are residents of and have offices in Tulsa County.
II. Background Facts
A. Overall Background & Execution of the Investment Fraud
11. In 2003 the Plaintiffs retained Ogden, a long-time CPA in Tulsa, Oldahoma, to prepare their business and personal income tax returns and for general accounting, bookkeeping and tax advice for their insulation business and for the Plaintiffs personally. This relationship continued and carried over to Ogden Incorporated PC. and then Ogden & Showalter PLLC. Over the course of their business dealings a close relationship developed between Plaintiffs and Ogden. The Plaintiffs trusted Ogden and put their complete faith in his professional abilities, advice and services and relied on him totally in matters of business and financial management. Ogden actually had keys to the Plaintiffs’ business and had access to the business for accounting activities at any time. At Ogden’s recommendation, Plaintiffs hired Ogden’s son-in-law to perform IT services for them at their business.
12. As their trusted CPA, Ogden knew the financial condition of the Plaintiffs and the extent of the assets which they had invested. Although the Plaintiffs were not looking for or seeking an investment advisor, in 2009 Ogden disclosed their financial information to Raymond Hall and introduced the Plaintiffs to Raymond Hall, stating that he and Raymond Hall had a long background as close friends and business partners. Raymond Hall was then a licensed broker and investment adviser for a Tulsa brokerage and investment advisory firm. Ogden recommended Raymond Hall as an investment advisor to the Plaintiffs and encouraged the Plaintiffs to open a securities account with Raymond Hall to help the Plaintiffs with their investment needs. Greatly influenced by Ogden’s enthusiastic recommendation and trusting the advice of their CPA, in 2009 the Plaintiffs opened a securities account with Raymond Hall and the brokerage firm where he was employed.
13. In late December, 2010, Ogden asked the Plaintiffs to come to his office. When the Plaintiffs arrived at Ogden’s office Raymond Hall, Bradley Hall, and Graddy were already there. The Plaintiffs were introduced to Bradley Hall and Graddy. Ogden and Raymond Hall explained to the Plaintiffs that Bradley Hall, the son of Raymond Hall, and his business partners, Graddy and Casey, had formed Preferred Waste and had a very sound and safe investment proposal for the Plaintiffs.
14. At this meeting, the Defendants informed the Plaintiffs that Preferred Waste was a sister company to Graddy’s already existing waste recycling company in Broken Arrow, Up- Cycled Materials. The Defendants further explained that Preferred Waste had a contract with Up-Cycled Materials to provide materials to Preferred Waste for processing, which would be highly profitable to Preferred Waste. The Defendants stated that Preferred Waste had a plant site in Pryor, Oklahoma and would be acquiring new waste recycling machinery that would allow Preferred Waste to separate and sell various forms of plastic waste that would ensure substantial profits for Preferred Waste and its investors.
15. Plaintiffs were provided with a two page document (attached hereto as Exhibit A) that explained in minimal terms the proposed operation of Preferred Waste, the investment returns and security for the proposed investment being requested from the Plaintiffs by the Defendants.
16. Exhibit A indicates, and Defendants represented, that startup time for the installation of the equipment and full operation of the business would be 90 days after installation of the equipment. The Plainti ifs were to receive .005% of ownership of Preferred Waste for each $100,000 invested. The two page document represented that the Plaintiffs would receive a minimum monthly payment of $6,000 or .005% of the profits of the business, whichever is greater, for each $100,000 invested; thus, the Plaintiffs were told they would receive a minimum annual return of $72,000 for each $100,000 invested. The Defendants represented, as does the Exhibit A brochure, that contracts were already in place (including the contract with Up-Cycled Materials) to ensure the payment of the monthly and annual returns for the Plaintiffs. The Defendants told the Plaintiffs, as stated in the Exhibit A brochure, that their investment would be secured by a UCC lien filing on the equipment to be purchased and that the UCC lien would remain in place until Plaintiffs had received an amount of monthly payments equal to their total investment.
17. At all times during the presentation of the Preferred Waste sales pitch, the Plaintiffs’ trusted CPA, Ogden, and Raymond Hall were present and participating actively in the discussion. Based on the recommendations of both Ogden and Raymond Hall, the Plaintiffs’ trusted professional advisors, and sales prcssure applied by both of them, Plaintiffs invested $300,000 of their life savings into Preferred Waste on December 30, 2010.
18. The investment and ownership interests sold to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants in December 2010 are securities under Section 1-102 of the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of 2004, 71 OS. § 1-102(32). The Plaintiffs invested in the risk capital of a venture and were led to believe they would receive substantial profits, based solely on the efforts of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs were never expected to manage any aspect of Preferred Waste, had no ability to do so, and had no control over Preferred Waste whatsoever.
19. Each of the material representations set forth above were relied upon by the Plaintiffs and were made, adopted or shared in their presence by Ogden and Raymond Hall, both trusted advisers and fiduciaries of the Plaintiffs. Almost every one of the material representations set forth above were absolutely false. Each of the Defendants knew or should have known that the representations were both material and false and knew or should have known that other material information, disclosures and risk factors should have been provided to the Plaintiffs but were not.
20. Ogden, Raymond Hall, Bradley Hall, Graddy and Casey were and are all owners of an interest in Preferred Waste and are insiders of Preferred Waste.
21. Ogden and Raymond Hall were both also promoters being compensated by Preferred Waste, Bradley Hall, Graddy and Casey for securing the Plaintiffs and others as investors in Preferred Waste. Ogden and Raymond Hall did not disclose to the Plaintiffs that they were being paid to get the Plaintiffs to invest in Preferred Waste.
22. The Defendants were obligated to make a complete and accurate disclosure of the nature of Preferred Waste, the nature and risks of an investment in Preferred Waste, the true financial condition of Preferred Waste, and the experience and qualifications of management of Preferred Waste. They failed to do so. Material omissions from the information provided by the Defendants included, but are not limited to:
a. An accurate and written disclosure document of any kind.
b. The actual financial condition of Preferred Waste.
c. The qualifications and experience of Bradley Hall, Graddy and Casey.
d. That the price to be paid by the Plaintiffs bore no relationship to the actual financial condition of Preferred Waste at the times of the Plaintiffs’ investments and did not tell the Plaintiffs that the net worth of Preferred Waste was minimal, if not negative.
e. That the price to be paid by Plaintiffs for a 0.005% interest was many times the true value of Preferred Waste and many times in excess of the fair value of capital invested by the Defendant insiders. The amount of money paid by Plaintiffs for such a minimal share of Preferred Waste instantly and substantially increased the valuation of the Defendants’ holdings in Preferred Waste while materially and substantially diluting instantly the value of the investment by the Plaintiffs. In December 2010 the Plaintiffs paid $300,000 for a 1.5% interest in Preferred Waste; another innocent investor (also a client of Ogden) also paid $300,000 for a 1.5% interest in Preferred Waste. The Defendants paid nothing of tangible value for their interests. The value of the Plaintiffs’ $300,000 was immediately diluted to $9,000, representing dilution to the Plaintiffs (and the other innocent investor) of 98%. But the interests held by Ogden and Raymond Hall, who had each received a 5% interest in exchange for no money, were immediately increased from zero to $30,000 each. The value of the interests of the Defendants, acquired for nothing of real tangible value, increased by $591,000. At the time they solicited and obtained the Plaintiffs’ initial investment, or at any other time, the Defendants did not disclose the amount of ownership interests held in Preferred Waste by each of them, the amounts of actual money paid by them for such interests, or the effects of this extreme dilution on the Plaintiffs.
f. The actual risk of an investment by the Plaintiffs or that the probability of a complete loss of Plaintiffs’ investment was substantial.
g. The actual and true nature and extent of any contracts held by Preferred Waste.
h. The actual experience of any of the Defendants in operating a recycling business.
i. The material risk factors that Preferred Waste faced in regard to the recycling process, the market for the service, and the risk factors facing Preferred Waste particularly as a start-up business.
j. The compensation being given by Preferred Waste, Bradley Hall, Graddy and Casey to Ogden and Raymond Hall for securing the Plaintiffs and others to make investments in Preferred Waste. Ogden and Raymond Hall paid no money for the 5% interests given to each of them; these interests were awarded for their efforts to bring investors to Preferred Waste.
23. Based on continuing and further fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions made by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs during the time period from December 30, 2010 through August 15, 2011, on or about August 15, 2011, the Plaintiffs were invited by Ogden to another meeting at Ogden’s office. Based again on false representations and omissions of material information, and again failing to inform the Plaintiffs of the true situation, at this meeting the Defendants solicited and obtained from Plaintiffs an additional $300,000 investment into Preferred Waste.
24. The investment and ownership interests sold to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants in August 2011 are securities under Section 1-102 of the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of 2004,71 O.S. § 1-102(32). The Plaintiffs invested in the risk capital of a venture and were led to believe they would receive substantial profits, based solely on the efforts of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs were never expected to manage any aspect of Preferred Waste, had no ability to do so, and had no control over Preferred Waste whatsoever.
25. Preferred Waste ceased operations in late 2011. Preferred Waste never produced any significant revenues or profits and was never able to operate successfully. Preferred Waste has been evicted from its leased plant site for non-payment of rent. The Defendants duped other investors who have lost money as well and the Plaintiffs have lost the entire $600,000 investment in Preferred Waste.
26. Although Ogden and Raymond Hall, two professionals with fiduciary obligations to the Plaintiffs, participated in the sales presentations to and meetings with the Plaintiffs, and thereafter as their CPA, business and financial advisor and broker/investment adviser, at no time was a separate security agreement prepared or signed, and no financing statement was signed or filed, to document the UCC lien to be placed on the equipment of Preferred Waste for the benefit of the Plaintiffs. Since employing the undersigned counsel, the Plaintiffs have now filed a financing statement with the Oklahoma County Clerk to perfect their security interest in the equipment of Preferred Waste.
27. Significant assets and funds of Preferred Waste have been used for the personal benefit of Defendants Bradley Hall and Graddy, and perhaps other Defendants.
28. Graddy used funds of Preferred Waste to purchase an expensive vehicle for his personai use and used funds of Preferred Waste to make payments on the loan on that vehicle.
29. Bradley Hall and Graddy were each paid $2,000 per month or more by Preferred Waste.
B. Particular Fiduciary Breaches by Ogden and Raymond Hall
30. Since 2003 Ogden was the CPA for the Plaintiffs, providing them with bookkeeping services, and business and tax advice. At the time of their introduction to the Preferred Waste investment or thereafter Ogden did not disclose to Plaintiffs that he was not acting solely for their benefit; indeed, he was acting almost entirely for his own benefit and for the benefit of his long-time friend, Raymond Hall and his son Bradley Hall. Ogden seized the opportunity to give the Plaintiffs what appeared to be expert advice from their trusted CPA recommending the Preferred Waste investment -- never revealing that he had stronger ties to Raymond Hall and Bradley Hall and that Ogden was being given—for no money invested—an interest in Preferred Waste many times larger than the interest being sold to the Plaintiffs, in return for securing the investment of the Plaintiffs and others. Ogden wholly failed to disclose his glaring conflicts of interest that completely impaired his objectivity, and Ogden blatantly breached his fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs.
31. Ogden’s failure to disclose his conflict of interest was a clear violation of the Code of Professional Conduct of the American Institute of CPAs. A violation of the AICPA’s Code of Conduct is a c/c facto violation of the Oklahoma Administrative Code governing certified public accountants in Oklahoma.
32. Since 2009 Raymond Hall was the Plaintiffs’ securities broker and investment adviser. In considering the Preferred Waste investment the Plaintiffs relied frilly on and trusted the advice of Raymond Hall, and he intended that they so rely. The Plaintiffs believed that Raymond Hall was acting in his capacity as their broker and investment adviser at the time he recommended the Preferred Waste investment. Raymond Hall did not tell the Plaintiffs that he was not acting in any capacity with his brokerage firm, nor did he tell them that he was violating his contract with the brokerage firm and committing violations of his duty as a registered representative by offering investments outside the business of his employer. Raymond Hall did not inform his brokerage firm that he was seeking investors and selling securities for Preferred Waste. Raymond Hall did not disclose to the Plaintiffs that he was being given—for no money
invested—an interest in Preferred Waste many times larger than the interest being sold to the Plaintiffs, in return for securing the investment of the Plaintiffs and others. Raymond Hall wholly failed to disclose his glaring conflicts of interest that completely impaired his objectivity, and Raymond Hall blatantly breached his fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs.
33. Plaintiffs had acquired no significant knowledge or experience regarding investment matters during their work careers. Plaintiffs always worked hard and put their money in savings accounts and other investments that were safe and secure. None of the Defendants ever explained the true nature of the Preferred Waste investments to Plaintiffs. As must have been extremely clear to Ogden and Raymond Hall from the start, if any of the Defendants had explained to the Plaintiffs how truly risky the Preferred Waste investment actually was, the Plaintiffs never would have invested a single penny in Preferred Waste. Both Ogden and Raymond Hall were well aware of that, based on their long business and fiduciary relationships with the Plaintiffs and on their long experience with securities investments.
34. According to any reasonable consideration — their net assets, their education, their employment, their stage of life, their risk tolerance — Preferred Waste was not an appropriate investment for Plaintiffs. In fact, Preferred Waste was not an appropriate investment for anyone.
35. To this day, the Plaintiffs have been given no accounting of how their funds were expended or why they experienced a complete loss of their investment.
III. Causes of Action
Count 1: Common Law Fraud and Deceit
(Against All Defendants)
36. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
37. The Defendants intentionally made false representations of past and present material facts, and omitted to disclose material facts, with the intent that the Plaintiffs would rely upon the Defendants’ false representations and material omissions. Plaintiffs did rely upon Defendants’ false representations and material omissions and were harmed thereby.
38. As a result of Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiffs were induced to place much of their life’s savings in a single startup, risky endeavor that was: 1) totally unsuited to Plaintiffs’ needs; 2) directly opposite to Plaintiffs’ general savings and low risk personalities; and 3) directly and indirectly benefited Defendants in ways not disclosed to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were fraudulently and deceptively induced to invest $600,000 in Preferred Waste.
39. Defendants further engaged in a scheme of continuing deception over more than a year in an effort to keep Plaintiffs in the dark about: 1) how Plaintiffs’ funds were actually being used; 2) the intertwining relationships of the Defendants; 3) Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ funds to further their own self-interests; and 4) the initial and continuing risky nature of the investment into which Defendants had induced Plaintiffs to enter.
40. But for Defendants’ intentional fraud and deceit, Plaintiffs would not have invested $600,000 with Preferred Waste, resulting in a complete loss.
Count 2: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(Against Ogden & Raymond Hall)
4t. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
42. Because of Ogden’s expertise as a CPA and his long-term role as Plaintiffs’ CPA and business adviser, and because of Raymond Hall’s expertise as an investment professional and investment adviser and his services as a financial advisor and broker to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs reposed their complete trust and confidence in the character, expertise, and ultimately, advice of both Ogden and Raymond Hall. Ogden, in particular, but Raymond Hall as well, cultivated this relationship of trust with Plaintiffs, each holding himself out as experts in the
fields of accounting, financial advi.ce and investment advice in which Ogden and Raymond Hall knew Plaintiffs were inexperienced and unsophisticated.
43. Ogden and Raymond Hall were successful in their efforts to earn Plaintiffs’ trust, and thereby gained influence over them. As a result of these Defendants’ expertise, Plaintiffs’ lack of sophistication in matters of accounting and financial investments and these Defendants’ knowledge that Plaintiffs were reliant upon their accounting and financial expertise, fiduciary relationships existed between Plaintiffs and Defendants Ogden and Raymond Hall.
44. As fiduciaries, each of Ogden and Raymond Hall were obligated to treat Plaintiffs with the utmost candor, rectitude, care, loyalty and good faith.
45. By making false representations to Plaintiffs and by failing to disclose material information to Plaintiffs, Ogden and Hall each breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs.
46. Plaintiffs have suffered injury and damages as a result of the breaches of fiduciary duty by Ogden and Hall.
Count 3: Oklahoma Securities Act Violations — Sections 1-509(B), 1-509(F), 1-509(G)
(Against All Defendants)
47. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
48. Defendants have acted in violation of the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of
2004 (“Securities Act”), and specifically, 71 0.5. § 1-509(B), 1-509(F), and 1-509(G), by selling securities in the State of Oklahoma that are not: I) exempted from registration by the Securities Act; or 2) registered under the Securities Act.
49, Defendants have further violated the Securities Act by employing a scheme with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs, making untrue statements of material fact as well as omitting material facts in violation of 71 O.S. § 1-509(B), 1-509(F), and 1-509(G).
50. Defendants’ violations of the Securities Act deceived and induced Plaintiffs into purchasing securities unregistered in the State of Oklahoma. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered substantial losses as described in detail above.
51. Plaintiffs hereby tender the interests they hold in Preferred Waste pursuant to Section 1-509 of the Securities Act.
Count 4: Professional Negligence
(Against Ogden)
52. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
53. In performing the acts herein alleged, Ogden failed to use the ordinary, usual and reasonable standard of care exercised by members of the accounting profession in the State of Oklahoma and negligently and carelessly failed to protect the interests of Plaintiffs.
54. In performing the acts herein alleged, Ogden failed to exercise the ordinary, usual and reasonable degree of supervision and control over its employees in the State of Oklahoma and thereby negligently and carelessly failed to protect the interests of Plaintiffs.
55. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Ogden, Plaintiffs were fraudulently induced and deceived into placing their funds into an extremely risky investment in unregistered securities, all with the result that Plaintiffs lost $600,000.
56. But for the herein described careless and negligent acts and omissions, and breaches of duty by Ogden, Plaintiffs would not have been induced and deceived into placing their funds into such a risky investment that benefited only the other Defendants, and Ogden personally, nor would Plaintiffs have lost $600,000.
57. Ogden’s acts and omissions herein complained of were performed in the State of Oklahoma, caused injury and damage in that State and constituted a transaction by Ogden of accounting business and practice in the State of Oklahoma.
58. The affidavit required by 12 0.5. § 19 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
59. Moreover, Ogden’s acts and omissions were done intentionally, with malice towards others and in reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, warranting the imposition of punitive damages against Ogden.
Count 5: Professional Negligence
(Against Raymond Hall)
60. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
61. In performing the acts herein alleged, Raymond Hall failed to use the ordinary, usual and reasonable standard of care exercised by members of the investment advisor profession in Oklahoma and negligently and carelessly failed to protect the interests of Plaintiffs.
62. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Raymond Hall, Plaintiffs were fraudulently induced and deceived into placing their funds into an extremely risky investment in unregistered securities, all with the result that Plaintiffs lost $600,000.
63. But for the herein described careless and negligent acts and omissions, and breaches of duty by Raymond Hall, Plaintiffs would not have been induced and deceived into placing their funds into such a risky investment that benefited only the other Defendants, and Raymond Hall personally, nor would Plaintiffs have lost $600,000.
64. Raymond Hall’s acts and omissions herein complained of were performed in the State of Oklahoma, caused injury and damage in that State and constituted a transaction by which Raymond Hall provided investment advisory services in the State of Oklahoma.
65. The affidavit required by 12 0.5. § 19 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
66. Moreover, Raymond Hall’s acts and omissions were done intentionally, with malice towards others and in reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, warranting the imposition of punitive damages against Raymond Hall.
Count 6: NepIience
(Against All Defendants)
67. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
68. All Defendants negligently supplied false information and negligently omitted to provide material information in the course of their business, profession or employment. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions were supplied for the guidance of Plaintiffs in their accounting, financial and investment activities. Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon this false information and omissions. This reliance resulted in a pecuniary loss to Plaintiffs as a result of their reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the false information or in omitting to disclose material information to the Plaintiffs.
69. As a result of the Defendants negligent misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs invested much of their life savings in the risky investment, Preferred Waste, recommended by Defendants, resulting in a loss of $600,000 by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would not have suffered this loss had Defendants not negligently misrepresented the type and safety of the investment they were recommending.
70. Moreover, the Defendants’ misrepresentations, acts and omissions were done intentionally, with malice towards others and in reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, warranting the imposition of punitive damages against each of the Defendants.
Count 7: Breach of Contract
(Against All Defendants)
71. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
72. The Defendants procured the Plaintiffs’ investment of $600,000 promising an annual investment return of 72%.
73. The Plaintiffs have received no return on their investment, and have not received their $600,000 back.
74. The Defendants, and each of them, have breached their agreement with the Plaintiffs.
Count 8: Replevin - Application for Order for Delivery of Specific Property
(Against Preferred Waste)
75. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
76. By the representations of the Defendants and the Exhibit A brochure, the
Plaintiffs were to receive a security interest in all equipment purchased by Preferred Waste. The
Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of Preferred Waste is signed by Preferred
Waste and grants a security interest in favor of the Plaintiffs in all equipment.
77. Upon information and belief, Preferred Waste purchased for approximately
$700,000 certain waste recycling equipment, some forklifts, a bobcat, and other miscellaneous equipment and office furniture (hereinafter, the “Property”), which is located at the Preferred Waste leased space at the Mid-America Industrial Park in Pryor, Oklahoma.
78. The actual value of the Property (insofar as Plaintiffs can determine) is approximately $200,000.
79. Preferred Waste has ceased operations, run out of funds, cannot pay its rent or other bills, been evicted from its leased space, and the Property is in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured.
80. Preferred Waste has not paid its rent at the MidAmerica Industrial Park and the landlord may assert a landlord’s lien on the equipment.
81. Preferred Waste is actively negotiating to sell all its assets or to bring in other investors.
82. Preferred Waste’s representatives acknowledge that the Plaintiffs have a security interest in the Property.
83. The Property is wrongfully detained by the Defendants. Plaintiffs have demanded that Preferred Waste immediately allow Plaintiffs to take possession of and foreclose upon the Property, but Preferred Waste has not responded to Plaintiffs’ demand and the Property is wrongfully detained by Preferred Waste.
84. The Property was not taken in execution on any order or judgment against the Plaintiffs, or for the payment of any tax, fine or amercement assessed against the Plaintiffs, or by virtue of an order of delivery issued under 12 O.S. § 1571, or any other mesne or final process issued against the Plaintiffs.
85. On June 21, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a financing statement with the County Clerk of Oklahoma County with respect to the Property, thereby perfecting their security interest in the Property. The Plaintiffs are entitled as a matter of law to an order for the immediate delivery of the Property, pursuant to 12 OS. § 1571.
86. There may be other investors who were also promised a security interest in the Property but who, if they have a security interest, have not perfected their security interest.
87. There are no other financing statements filed with the County Clerk of Oklahoma County with respect to the Property.
88. The Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment for the immediate delivery of the Property to the Plaintiffs, so that Plaintiffs may foreclose thereon and apply the net proceeds of foreclosure against the $600,000 invested.
IV. Demand for Jury
89. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.
V. APPLICATION FOR ORDER
RESTRAINING DISPOSITION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY
(12 0.5. 1571(C))
(Against Preferred Waste and all persons acting
by or on behalf of Preferred Waste)
90. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
91. In Count S above the Plaintiffs seek relief in the nature of replevin, under 12 O.S. § 1571.
92. Under 12 OS. § 1571(C), the Court may, on the request of the Plaintiffs, order Preferred Waste, and any person acting by or on behalf of Preferred Waste, not to conceal, damage or destroy the Property or any part thereof, and not to remove the Property or any party thereof from the state or county, pending the determination of the Plaintiffs request for a judgment for the delivery of the Property.
93. Plaintiffs are entitled to entry of, and hereby apply for, an order under 12 O.S. §
1571(C), restraining Preferred Waste and its agents, servants, employees and all persons acting on its behalf or by or under its authority from transferring, concealing, damaging or destroying any of the Property.
VI. EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PROHIBITING DISPOSITION OF ANY MONEY OR ASSETS
(12 O.S. 1382)
(Against All Defendants)
94. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
95. Under 12 OS. § 1382, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought, because during the litigation it appears the Defendants may do or suffer to be done some act which would tend to render the judgment sought by the Plaintiffs ineffectual, such as selling the Property or transferring or wasting their personal assets some of which were acquired with funds from Preferred Waste. Accordingly, the Court may issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction freezing the assets of the Defendant so that all assets of the Defendants would be available for application upon the judgment to be entered herein.
96. According to recent statements by Bradley Hall and Casey, Graddy wasted the assets of Preferred Waste, diverted money from Preferred Waste for his own personal benefit, and has refused to account for the assets or business activities of Preferred Waste. Bradley Hall and Casey have stated that they are negotiating to sell the assets of Preferred Waste. Preferred Waste has not been able to account for how the Plaintiffs’ invested funds were expended. Preferred Waste has wasted the funds invested by the Plaintiffs. Preferred Waste has not returned any funds to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, there is a reasonable danger that the Defendants may during the course of the litigation take actions which would tend to render the judgment sought ineffectual.
97. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to, and hereby apply for, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under 12 0.8. § 1382 freezing the assets of all Defendants. To minimize the potential need for hearings to allow de minimus expenditures by the Defendants for the costs and expenses of their daily lives, Plaintiffs request the Court enjoin the Defendants, and each of them, under 12 OS. § 1382, by its temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction freezing their assets and directing each of the Defendants not to spend or dispose of any of their assets in excess of $500.00 without an order from this Court pending entry of the final judgment in this matter.
VII. EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER
(12 O.S. 1551(A)(1), (5))
(Against Preferred Waste)
98. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.
99. Under 12 OS. § 1551, the Court may appoint a receiver over the assets of a defendant in any action by a creditor to subject any property or fund to his claim, or in any action between persons jointly interested in any property or fund, where it is shown the property or fund is in danger of being lost, removed or materially injured.
100. As set forth above, the Defendants are actively negotiating to sell the remaining assets of Preferred Waste. Moreover, given their prior conduct the Defendants cannot be trusted to maintain the assets of Preferred Waste pending a resolution of this matter.
101. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to, and hereby apply for, the appointment of a receiver under 12 OS. § 1551 to take possession of all assets of Preferred Waste and to take such steps with respect thereto as may be appropriate to maximize the amount to be recovered by the Plaintiffs, pending entry of a final judgment in this matter.
VIII. Prayer for Relief
Plaintiffs respectfully request an award of:
A. a money judgment against each of the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the damages suffered, in an amount to be proven at trial, in excess of $10,000 (and at least the $600,000 invested, plus interest);
B. a money judgment against each of the Defendants, jointly and severally, for the Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees as allowed by statute, including but not limited to 71 0.5. § l-509(B)(3), and for the costs of this action, including filing fees, costs of service and expert witness fees;
C. a money judgment against each of the Defendants, jointly and severally, for exemplary damages under 23 0.S, § 9.1 of $1,200,000, plus interest;
D. ajudgment determining that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the immediate possession of the Property, and if these assets have not already been sold pre-judgment, directing that same shall be sold and the proceeds applied against the damages owed the Plaintiffs;
E. an order for the immediate appointment of a receiver herein to take possession of the Property and all other assets of Preferred Waste and all assets paid for by Preferred Waste, and if these assets have not already been sold pre-judgment, directing that same shall be sold and the proceeds applied against the damages owed the Plaintiffs;
F. a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against each of the Defendants under 12 0.5. § 1571(C), directing them not to conceal, damage or destroy any assets of Preferred Waste pending the final judgment in this matter;
G. a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against each of the Defendants under 12 0.5. § 1382, freezing their assets and directing them not to spend or dispose of any of their personal assets in excess of $500.00 without an order from this Court pending entry of the final judgment in this matter.
H. All other legal and equitable relief to which Plaintiffs’ are entitled.

Docket
Date Code Description Count Party Amount
07-16-2012 TEXT

Civil relief more than $10,000 Initial Filing.
1
07-16-2012 FRAUD

FRAUD

07-16-2012 DMFE

DISPUTE MEDIATION FEE
$ 2.00
07-16-2012 PFE1

PETITION

Document Available (#1018958680)
$ 163.00
07-16-2012 PFE7

LAW LIBRARY FEE
$ 6.00
07-16-2012 OCISR

Oklahoma Court Information System Revolving Fund
$ 25.00
07-16-2012 CCADMIN02

Court Clerk Administrative Fee on $2 Collections
$ 0.20
07-16-2012 OCJC

Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund
$ 2.00
07-16-2012 OCASA

Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates
$ 5.00
07-16-2012 CCADMIN04

Court Clerk Administrative Fee on Collections
$ 0.50
07-16-2012 LTF

Lengthy Trial Fund
$ 10.00
07-16-2012 SMF

Summons Fee (Clerks Fee) -10-
$ 50.00
07-16-2012 SMIP

Summons Issued - Private Process Server -10-

07-16-2012 NO

NOTICE TO DEFTS OF APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY

Document Available (#1019041572)

07-16-2012 TEXT

OCIS has automatically assigned Judge Fitzgerald, Mary to this case.

07-16-2012 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2012-2401598 on 07/16/2012.
Payor:CONNER AND WINTERS LLP Total Amount Paid: $263.70.
Line Items:
CJ-2012-3698: $213.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.
CJ-2012-3698: $6.00 on AC23 Law Library Fee.
CJ-2012-3698: $0.70 on AC31 Court Clerk Revolving Fund.
CJ-2012-3698: $5.00 on AC58 Oklahoma Court Appointed Special Advocates.
CJ-2012-3698: $2.00 on AC59 Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints Revolving Fund.
CJ-2012-3698: $2.00 on AC64 Dispute Mediation Fees.
CJ-2012-3698: $25.00 on AC79 OCIS Revolving Fund.
CJ-2012-3698: $10.00 on AC81 Lengthy Trial Fund.

07-17-2012 NOH

NOTICE OF HEARING / SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON 7-25-12 @ 2:30 PM IN ROOM 706

Document Available (#1019042669)

07-17-2012 TRO

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING DISPOSITON OF ANY MONEY OR ASSETS

Document Available (#1019042665)

07-17-2012 O

ORDER RESTRAINING DISPOSITION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY

Document Available (#1019042673)

07-17-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: NOTICE OF SETTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SET ON 7-25-2012 AT 2:30

07-17-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING DISPOSITION OF ANY MONEY OR ASSETS SET WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

07-17-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED RESTRAINING DISPOSITION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY

07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED ON BRADLEY ALLEN HALL, PERSONAL SERVICE ON 7-19-12 BY PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1019102234)
HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED ON LARRY D CASEY, PERSONAL SERVICE ON 7-19-12 BY PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1019102230)
CASEY, LARRY D
07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED ON OGDEN INC PC, CORPORATION SERVICE BY SERVING DALE W OGDEN, ON 7-18-12 BY PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1019102226)
OGDEN INCORPORATED PC
07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED FOR PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS LLC / CORP SERV, BY SERVING BRIAN J RAYMENT, ON 7-20-12, PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1019102181)
PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS LLC
07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED FOR PREFERRED WAST SOLUTION PLAINT NO 1 LLC / CORP SERV, BY SERVING BRIAN J RAYMENT, ON 7-20-12, PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1019102177)
PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS PLANT NO 1 LLC
07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED TO BILLY WAYNE GRADDY JR, PERSONAL SERVICE, ON 7-18-12, PROCESS SERVICE

Document Available (#1019102173)
GRADDY, BILLY WAYNE JR
07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED FOR UP-CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC / CORP SERV/ BY SERVING BILLY WAYNE GRADDY JR / ON 7-18-12, PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1019102169)
UP CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC
07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED TO DALE WESLEY OGDEN, PERSONAL SERVICE, ON 7-18-12, PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1019102165)
OGDEN, DALE WESLEY
07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED FOR OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC / CORP SERV / BY SERVING DALE W OGDEN / ON 7-18-12,PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1019102161)
OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC
07-23-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED TO RAYMOND ANDREW HALL, PERSONAL SERVICE, ON 7-19-12, PROCESS SERVER

Document Available (#1019102238)
HALL, RAYMOND ANDREW
07-25-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER HELD, ANDREW TURNER PRESENT FOR PL, BRIAN RAYMENT PRESENT FOR DF. DAVID STUDIVANT PRESENT FOR OGDAN, CONNIL TUCKER PRESENT FOR UPCYCLED, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO REMAIN IN EFFECT EXCEPT TO OGDAN DFS, BILLY CRADDY, UPCYCLED MATERIAL LLC. A MODIFIED ORDER WILL BE ENTERED AS TO THESE DFS. HEARING CONTINUED TO 8-9-2012 AT 3:00 AS A STATUS CONFERENCE

07-31-2012 SMF

Summons Fee (Clerks Fee)-2
$ 10.00
07-31-2012 SMIMA

SUMMONS ISSUED - MAILED BY ATTORNEY-2

07-31-2012 AMP

FIRST AMENDED PETITION, APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY; APPLICATION FOR ORDER RESTRAINING DISPOSITION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY; EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019104787)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
07-31-2012 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2012-2411695 on 07/31/2012.
Payor:CONNER & WINTERS Total Amount Paid: $10.00.
Line Items:
CJ-2012-3698: $10.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.

08-06-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED PROHIBITING DISPOSITION OF ANY MONEY OR ASSETS

08-07-2012 MO

Motion TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT / A TO J/ SUBMITTED BY MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES LLC /

Document Available (#1019194275)

08-07-2012 P

Petition IN INTERVENTION / (SUBMITTED BY STAND-BY PERSONNEL INC) / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1019194256)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
08-07-2012 MO

STAND-BY PERSONNEL INC'S MOTION TO INTERVENE / A TO J/ CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1019194252)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
08-08-2012 O

Order PROHIBITING DISPOSITION OF ANY MONEY OR ASSETS / (AS TO DEFENDANT GROUP #1) / SEE CTFREE FOR 7-25-12 ABOVE

08-08-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED GRANTING MOTION OF STAND BY PERSONAL TO INTERVENE

08-08-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED GRANTING MOTION OF MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES TO INTERVENE

08-08-2012 O

ORDER PROHIBITING DISPOSITION OF ANY MONEY OR ASSETS (AS TO DEFT GROUP #1)

Document Available (#1019194572)

08-09-2012 P

PETITION IN INTERVENTION (MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC)

Document Available (#1019269476)
MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC
08-09-2012 NO

NOTIEC OF APPEARANCE (ROBERT W IVY ENTERS AS COUNSEL) / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019269472)
MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC
08-09-2012 TEXT

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING DISPOSITION OF ANY MONEY OR ASSETS / (AS TO THE OGDEN DEFENDANTS),

Document Available (#1019269604)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
08-09-2012 O

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE

Document Available (#1019269563)

08-09-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: STATUS HELD, ANDREW TURNER PRESENT FOR PL BRIAN RAYMENT PRESENT FOR PREFERRED WASTE, ROBERT IVY PRESENT FOR MACHINEX, DAVID BRYANT PRESENT FOR SOUTHBERRY, ROBERT SARTIN PRESENT FOR STANBY. HEARING CONTINED TO 8-17-2012 AT 10:30

08-13-2012 A

DEFT UP-CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC'S ANSWER TO PLTFS' FIRST AMENDED PETITION; APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY; APPLICATION FOR ORDER RESTRAINING DISPOSITON FO SPECIFIC PROPERTY; EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION & EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER

Document Available (#1019271308)
UP CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC
08-14-2012 CERTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROHIBITING DISPOSITION OF ANY MONEY OR ASSETS (AS TO THE OGDEN DEFENDANTS)

Document Available (#1019272200)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
08-14-2012 CERTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF ODER / ORDER PROHIBITING DISPOSITION OF ANY MONEY OR ASSETS (AS TO DEFENDANT GROUP #1)

Document Available (#1019272196)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
08-14-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED ON SOUTHBURY LLC, SIGNED BY BLYTH K? ON 8-07-12 BY CERTIFEID MAIL

Document Available (#1019272115)
SOUTHBURY LLC
08-14-2012 EAA

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE & RESERVATION OF TIME (MARK LYONS ENTERS AS COUNSEL FOR LARRY CASEY, RAYMOND HALL & BRADLEY HALL - COVERSHEETS ATTACHED) / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019272119)
CASEY, LARRY D
08-17-2012 EAA

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEYS FOR DEFTS ADAM KOCH & SOUTHBURY LLC (DAVID BRYAN, JOHN D DALE, & BRANDON C BICKLE ENTER AS COUNSEL - COVERSHEET ATTACHED) / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019274629)
KOCH, ADAM
08-17-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: STATUS HELD, ANDREW TURNER PRESENT FOR PL, BRIAN RAYMENT PRESENT FOR PREFFERRED WASTE, KYLE ROGERS PRESENT FOR UPCYCLE, ROBERT SARTIN PRESENT FOR STANDBY, DAVID BRYANT PRESENT FOR SOUTHBERRY. HEARING CONTINUED TO 9-27-2012 AT 3:00. PL HAS LEAVE TO ADD PARTIES. DFS HAVE 15 DYS TO OBJECT TO PETITION FOR REPLEVIN

08-22-2012 SMF

Summons Fee (Clerks Fee)
$ 5.00
08-22-2012 SMIP

Summons Issued - Private Process Server

08-22-2012 AMP

SECOND AMENDED PETITION, APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY; APPLICATION FOR ORDER RESTRAINING DISPOSITION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY' EMERGENCY APPLICAITON FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION & EMERGENCY APPLICAITON FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECIEVER (ADDING CLAIMS RE OKLA ORDINANCE WORKS AUTHORITY ONLY)

Document Available (#1019383202)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
08-22-2012 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2012-2425096 on 08/22/2012.
Payor:CONNER & WINTERS Total Amount Paid: $5.00.
Line Items:
CJ-2012-3698: $5.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.

08-24-2012 SMF

Summons Fee (Clerks Fee)
$ 5.00
08-24-2012 ASMIA

ALIAS SUMMONS ISSUED MAILED BY ATTORNEY

08-24-2012 NO

Notice TO DEFENDANT OF APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY /

Document Available (#1019387890)

08-24-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. SUMMONS SERVED FOR OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY / CERTIFIED MAIL, SIGNED SHAMMUCK, ON 8-23-12

Document Available (#1019387886)

08-24-2012 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2012-2426707 on 08/24/2012.
Payor:CONNER & WINTERS Total Amount Paid: $5.00.
Line Items:
CJ-2012-3698: $5.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.

08-28-2012 S

Party has been successfully served. ALIAS SUMMONS SERVED ON OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY / CERTIFIED MAIL / SIGNED BY S. HAMMAN? / ON 8-27-12

Document Available (#1019443798)

08-29-2012 EAA

SPECIAL APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY; OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE AND MOTION TO DISMISS / DAVID H HERROLD ENTERS AS COUNSEL / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / COVER SHEET

Document Available (#1019445367)

08-31-2012 EAA

SPECIAL APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY; OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE; OBJECTION TO APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR DELIVERY / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / WILLIAM C ANDERSON, SAM G BRATTON II, DAVID H HERROLD, AND N LANCE BYRAN

Document Available (#1019449082)
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
08-31-2012 ADVB

SPECIAL APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT OKLAHOMA ORDANCE WORKS AUTHORITY, AND ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY AS TO DEF PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS LLC ON AUGUST 17,2012 CASE #12-12272-R CHAPTER 7 BY DEBTOR ATTY

Document Available (#1019384673)
PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY
1 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY
1 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS PLANT NO 1 LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY
2 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY
2 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS PLANT NO 1 LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY
3 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE PF BANKRUPTCY
3 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS PLANT NO 1 LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY
4 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY
4 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS PLANT NO 1 LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY
5 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS LLC
08-31-2012 DISPBRP

ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY
5 PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS PLANT NO 1 LLC
08-31-2012 OBJ

OBJECTION OF INTERVENOR, STAND-BY PERSONNEL INC TO SECOND AMENDED PETITION

Document Available (#1019449623)
STAND BY PERSONNEL INC
08-31-2012 A

UP-CYCLED MATERIAL GP LLC'S ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED PETITION

Document Available (#1019449649)
UP CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC
09-04-2012 OBJ

OBJECTION OF INTERVENOR MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC TO SECOND AMENDED PETITION INCLUDING PETITION FOR REPLEVIN / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1019449376)
MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC
09-04-2012 OBJ

DEFENDANTS ADAM KOCK AND SOUTHBURY LLC'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' REPLEVIN CAUSE OF ACTION / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1019449756)
SOUTHBURY LLC
09-04-2012 A

DEFENDANTS DALE WESLEY OGDEN OGDEN INCORPORATED PC AND OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC'S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED PETITION / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019451097)
OGDEN, DALE WESLEY
09-05-2012 MO

PLTFS' MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFNESES & BRIEF IN SUPORT (AS TO THE OGDEN DEFTS) A/J

Document Available (#1019450900)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
09-07-2012 ADVB

SPECIAL APPEARANCE DEFENDANT OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORUITY; AND ADVICE OF BANKRUPTCY PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS PLANT #1, LLC FILED SEPT 7,2012 CASE #12-12476-R CHAPTER 7 BY DEBTOR ATTY

Document Available (#1019445762)
PREFERRED WASTE SOLUTIONS PLANT NO 1 LLC
09-10-2012 EAA

SPECIAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY; OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE' AMENDED OBJECTION TO APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR DELIVERY / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE /

Document Available (#1019511373)
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
09-10-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ALLOWING INTERVENOR LEFT IN OUT BOX SINCE 8-8-2012. FILED WITH COURT CLERK

09-11-2012 O

ORDER / MOTION OF MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC TO INTERVENE IS GRANTED / DATED 8-8-12

Document Available (#1019511970)

09-11-2012 MO

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENDSES AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT (AS TO DEFENDANT GRADDY) / C TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019512148)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
09-11-2012 A

ANSWER OF DEFT BILLY WAYNE GRADDY JR (BRIAN RAYMENT ENTERS AS COUNSEL - COVERSHEET ATTACHED) / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1019511751)
GRADDY, BILLY WAYNE JR
09-11-2012 DWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (AS TO DEF OOWA ONLY) DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED PETITION

Document Available (#1019513196)
OKLAHOMA ORDNANCE WORKS AUTHORITY
09-13-2012 A

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT RAYMOND ANDREW HALL TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED PETITION / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / MARK D LYON ENTERING AS COUNSEL / W-CS

Document Available (#1019514335)
HALL, RAYMOND ANDREW
09-13-2012 A

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT BRADLEY ALLEN HALL TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED PETITON / MARK D LYONS ENTERING AS COUNSEL / W-CS / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / A TO J

Document Available (#1019514339)
HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
09-14-2012 A

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT LARRY D CASEY TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED PETITION / MARK D LYONS ENTERING AS COUNSEL / W-CS / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / A TO J

Document Available (#1019514343)
CASEY, LARRY D
09-18-2012 A

DEFENDANT ADAM KOCH AND SOUTHBURY LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED PETITION BY ATTY DAVID L BRYANT (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)

Document Available (#1019611053)
KOCH, ADAM
09-21-2012 RESP

DEFENDANT BILLY WAYNE GRADDY, JR'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE

Document Available (#1019447483)

09-24-2012 MOSJ

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT // AS TO DEFS DALE WESLEY OGDEN, OGDEN INC PC, OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC, AND RAYMOND ANDREW HALL (C/J)

Document Available (#1019609958)
$ 50.00
09-24-2012 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2012-2446722 on 09/24/2012.
Payor:CONNER & WINTERS Total Amount Paid: $50.00.
Line Items:
CJ-2012-3698: $50.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.

09-25-2012 A

DEFENDANTS DALE WESLEY OGDEN OGDEN INCORPO0RTATED PC AND ODGEN & SHOWALTER PLL'S ANSWER RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO MOTIN TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019615610)
OGDEN, DALE WESLEY
09-27-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: STATUS HELD, ANDREW TURNER PRESENT FOR PL, BRIAN RAYMENT PRESENT FOR DF, COLLIN TUCKER PRESENT FOR UPCYCLED, DAVID BRYANT PRSENT FOR KOCH, DAVID HERROLD PRESENT FOR OOWA. AGREED SCHEDULING ORDDER TO BE SUBMITED WITHIN 2 WEEKS. STATUS SET ON 11-16-2012 AT 3:00. REPLEVIN STATUS IS CURRENTLY MOOT. RECEIVER STATUS IS MOOT.

09-28-2012 DWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY INTERVENE FILED AUG 7,2012 BY ATTY ROBERT B SARTIN

Document Available (#1019447714)
STAND BY PERSONNEL INC
10-01-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED/ PLS MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IS DENIED. NOTICES SENT TO ANDREW TURNER, BRIAN RAYMENT, MARK LYONS, DAVID SURDIVANT, DAVID BRYANT, COLIN TUCKER, LANCE BRYAN, ROBERT SARTIN, ROBERT IVY

10-01-2012 O

ORDER (PLTF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IS DENIED) / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1019684238)

10-09-2012 MO

DEFENANT RAYMOND ANDREW HALL'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT / A TOJ / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019761362)
HALL, RAYMOND ANDREW
10-09-2012 MO

DEFENDANT RAYMOND ANDREW HALL'S MOTION TO FILE RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF' FIRST WAVE OF DISCOVERY OUT OF TIME / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019761358)
HALL, RAYMOND ANDREW
10-10-2012 OBJ

Objection TO DEFENDANT RAYMOND ANDREW HALLS' MOTION TO FILE RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST WAVE OF DISCOVERY OUT OF TIME / C TO J/ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019687745)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
10-10-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED SETTING PRETRIAL ON 4-29-2013 AT 10:00

10-10-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED GRANTING DF RAYMOND ANDREWS HALLS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10-11-2012 SCHO

SCHEDULING ORDER / 10-10-12

Document Available (#1019762866)

10-11-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED GRANTING DF RAYMOND ANDREW HALLS MOTION TO FILE RESPONSES TO PLS FIRST WAVE OF DISCOVERY OUT OF TIME WITHIN 1 WEEK OF THE FILING OF THIS ORDER

10-12-2012 O

Order GRANTING DEFENDANT RAYMOND ANDREW HALL'S MOTION TO FILE RESPONSES TO PLIAINTIFFS' FIRST WAVE OF DISCOVERY OUT OF TIME / SEE ABOVE ENTRY / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019762899)

10-12-2012 O

Order GRANTING DEFENDANT RAYMOND ANDREW HALL'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT /CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019762875)

10-15-2012 MO

DEFENDANTS DALE WESLEY OGDEN OGDEN INCORPORATED PC AND ODGEN & SHOWALTER PLLC MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTILA SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN OPPOSTION / C TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1019764027)
OGDEN INCORPORATED PC
10-17-2012 CTEXP

COURT FILE EXPANDED TO VOLUME <2> AS OF <7/21/12>

10-25-2012 O

Order / PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED AS PREMATURE.

Document Available (#1019868477)

10-25-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED/ PLS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUGMENT IS DENIED AS PREMATURE. NOTICES SENT TO ANDREW TURNER, BRIAN RAYMENT, MARK LYONS, DAVID STURDIVANT, DVID BRYANT, COLIN TUCKER, ROBERT SARTIN, ROBERT IVEY

10-26-2012 RESP

DEFT RAYMOND ANDREW HALL'S RESPONSES TO PLTF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AS TO DEFTS DALE WESLEY OGDEN, OGDEN INC PC, OGDEN &SHOWALTER PLLC, AND RAYMOND ANDREW HALL) (A/J)

Document Available (#1019987467)
HALL, RAYMOND ANDREW
11-16-2012 DWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (AS TO DEFENDANTS ADAM KOCH & SOUTHBURY LLC ONLY) BY PLF ATTY

Document Available (#1020038604)
SOUTHBURY LLC
11-16-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: STATUS HELD, ANDREW TURNER PRESENT FOR PL BRIAN RAYMENT PRESENT FOR DF, MARK LYONS PRESENT FOR RAYMOND HALL. DFS HALL TO RESPOND TO ALL DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS . ORDER TO BE SUBMITED

11-19-2012 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED FOR DFS TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

11-20-2012 DWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF INTERVENOR MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC

Document Available (#1020038689)
MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
4 CASEY, LARRY D
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
4 GRADDY, BILLY WAYNE JR
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
4 HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
4 HALL, RAYMOND ANDREW
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
4 MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
4 OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
4 OGDEN INCORPORATED PC
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
4 OGDEN, DALE WESLEY
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
4 UP CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 CASEY, LARRY D
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 GRADDY, BILLY WAYNE JR
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 HALL, RAYMOND ANDREW
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 MACHINEX TECHNOLOGIES INC
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 OGDEN INCORPORATED PC
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 OGDEN, DALE WESLEY
11-20-2012 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
5 UP CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC
11-20-2012 O

ORDER FOR DEFTS TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

Document Available (#1020103285)

11-21-2012 CERTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (OF ORDER FOR DEFTS TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY)

Document Available (#1020107318)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
12-03-2012 WL

DEFENDANTS DALE WESLEY OGEDEN OGDEN INCORPORATED PC AND OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC'S PRELIMINARY LISTS OF WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1020317732)
OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC
02-12-2013 MOC

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS / CERT OF SERVICE / A/J

Document Available (#1020801581)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
02-19-2013 MO

Motion TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES / C TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1020915016)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
02-21-2013 AM

FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Document Available (#1020916731)

02-21-2013 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED RESETTING PRETRIAL ON 6-25-2013 AT 10:00

02-25-2013 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED

02-26-2013 O

PROTECTIVE ORDER / DATED 2-25-13

Document Available (#1020919135)

02-27-2013 MO

DEFENDANTS LARRY CASEY BRADLEY HALL AND RAYMOND HALL'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL / CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Document Available (#1020904857)
CASEY, LARRY D
02-28-2013 O

Order / DEFENDANT'S LARRY CASEY, BRADLEY HALL AND RAYMOND HALLS'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. RESPONSE IS DUE 3-6-13

Document Available (#1020905003)

02-28-2013 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED/ DFS LARRY CASEY, BRADLEY HALL AND RAYMOND HALLS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLS MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. RESPONSE IS DUE 3-6-3013. NOTICES SENT TO MARK LYONS, ANDREW TURNER, DAVID STURDIVANT, DAVID BRYANT, BRIAN RAYMENT, COLIN TUCKER, ROBERT IVY, LANCE BRYAN

03-05-2013 RESP

DEFENDANTS RAYMOND HALL, BRADLEY HALL, AND LARRY CASEY'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL / CERT OF SERVICE (A/J) / SEE ENTRY ABOVE

Document Available (#1020907639)
HALL, RAYMOND ANDREW
03-08-2013 RET

RETURNED LETTER:TO ROBERT IVEY FROM JUDGE FITZGERALD (ORDER OF 2-28-13 ENCLOSED) / "INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS"

Document Available (#1020911568)

03-08-2013 O

Order / PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1020911620)

03-08-2013 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED/ PLS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED. NOTICES SENT TO ANDREW TURNER. BRIAN RAYMENT, DAVID STURDIVANT, COLIN TUCKER, MARK LYONS

04-09-2013 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED (NO PRETRIAL GIVEN)

04-09-2013 MO

Motion TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES (SECOND UNOPPOSED)// CERT OF SERVICE (A/J)

Document Available (#1021481822)

04-10-2013 AM

SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER / 4-9-13

Document Available (#1021483740)

04-29-2013 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE NOT HELD, RESET TO 6-25-2013 AT 10:00

06-19-2013 MO

MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL, DEADLINES (THIRD UNOPPOSED) A/J

Document Available (#1022171962)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
06-20-2013 AM

THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER /

Document Available (#1022170951)

06-20-2013 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: 3RD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED. PRETRIAL SET ON 6-25-2013 IS STRICKEN TO BE RESET ON APPLICATION

06-25-2013 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE NOT HELD, STRICKEN TO RESET ON APPLICATION

07-16-2013 MO

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICE / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1022335431)
GRADDY, BILLY WAYNE JR
07-16-2013 OBJ

PLTF'S OBJECTION TO MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICE (A/J)

Document Available (#1022335539)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
07-19-2013 O

ORDER (MOTION TO Q UASH DEPOSITIONG DEPOSITION NOTICES IS DENIED UNLESS AN ALTERNATIVE DATE CAN BE AGREED ON PRIORT O DEPOSITON ON 7-22-13) / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1022242716)

07-19-2013 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED/ MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICES IS DENIED UNLESS AS ALTERNATIVE DATE CAN BE AGREED ON PRIOR TO DEPOSITION ON JULY 22, 2013. NOTICES SENT TO BRIAN RAYMENT, ANDREW TURNER, DAVID BRYANT, COLIN TUCKER, ROBERT SARTIN, ROBERT IVEY (CLERK CALL MR RAYMENT AND ADVISED HIM OF COURT DECISION)

08-05-2013 TEXT

SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY FILED BY DEFS CHAPTER 7 CASE #13-33922 ON AUGUST 3, 2013

Document Available (#1022338423)
UP CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC
08-05-2013 DISPBRP

SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY
1 UP CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC
08-05-2013 DISPBRP

SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY
2 UP CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC
08-05-2013 DISPBRP

SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY
3 UP CYCLED MATERIALS GP LLC
09-19-2014 REQ

Request FOR STATUS CONFERENCE / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1027195599)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
09-24-2014 NOH

NOTICE OF HEARING/ STATUS CONFERENIS SET ON 10-30-14 @ 9:30AM / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1027195930)

09-24-2014 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: STATUS CONFERENCE IS SET ON 10-30-2014 AT 9:30. NOTICES SENT TO ANDREW TURNER, BRIAN RAYMENT, MARK LYONS, DAVID STURDIVANT

09-26-2014 MO

MOTION TO REVISE SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXTEND DISCOVERY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION / A TO J

Document Available (#1027201728)

10-30-2014 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: STATUS CONFERENCE HELD, ANDREW TURNER PRESENT FOR PL, BRIAN RAYMENT PRESENT FOR DF, DAVID STURDIVANT PRESENT FOR ODGEN, MARK LYON PRESENT FOR CASEY. AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER TO BE SUBMITED WITHIN 10 DAYS. PRETRAIL SET ON 3-9-3015 AT 10:00. TENTITAVE JURY TRIAL SET ON 5-4-2015 AT 9:00

11-24-2014 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: 4TH AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED

11-25-2014 SO

FOURTH AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Document Available (#1027978017)

02-24-2015 NOH

NOTICE OF HEARING/ PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET ON 3-9-15 @ 10 AM, RESET BY THE COURT TO 3-9-15 @ 8:45 AM / AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING

Document Available (#1028749441)

02-24-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET ON 3-9-2015 AT 10:00 IS RESET BY THE COURT TO 3-9-2015 AT 8:45. NOTICES SENT TO ANDREW TURNER, BRIAN RAYMENT, DALE OGDEN, MARK LYONS, COLLIN TUCKER, JOHN DALE, SAM BRATTON, DAVID BRYANT, ROBERT IVY

03-09-2015 RET

RETURN/ OF NOTICE OF HEARING / FOR DAVID BRYANT / BY USPS / NOT DLIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED

Document Available (#1028986402)

03-09-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE HELD, ANDREW TURNER PRESENT FOR PL, BRIAN RAYMENT PRESENT FOR DF. DAVID STURDMAN PRESENT FOR ODGEN. PRETRIAL ORDER TO BE SUBMITED WITHIN 2 WEEKS

03-18-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: JURY TRIAL SET ON 5-4-2015 AT 9:00 IS STRICKEN AND RESET AS A NON JURY TRIAL ON 5-26-2015 AT 9:00 PER ANDREW TURNER

03-25-2015 MO

Motion TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BRADLEY ALLEN HALL / A TO J / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029068361)
HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
03-26-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: ORDER ENTERED GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DF BRADLEY HALL BY MARK LYONS

03-31-2015 O

Order GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BRADLEY ALLEN HALL / MARK D LYON / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Available (#1029182216)
HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
03-31-2015 CERTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF MOTION TO WITHWITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BRADLEY ALLEN HALL /

Document Available (#1029182212)
HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
04-03-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER ENTERED

04-07-2015 PTO

PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

Document Available (#1028980850)

04-07-2015 CRF

COURT REPORTER FEE-TRIAL ON MERITS
$ 20.00
04-07-2015 ACCOUNT

Receipt # 2015-3065302 on 04/07/2015.
Payor:CONNER AND WINTERS Total Amount Paid: $20.00.
Line Items:
CJ-2012-3698: $20.00 on AC01 Clerk Fees.

04-09-2015 CERTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

Document Available (#1029176569)
GARCIA, ISAIAS C
05-04-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: JURY TRIAL NOT HELD, CHANGE TO A NON JURY TRIAL SET ON 5-26-2015 AT 9:00

05-11-2015 ODISM

STIPULATED Order Of Dismissal ( AS CONCERNS DEF BRADLEY ALLEN HALL ONLY)

Document Available (#1029447675)
HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
05-11-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1 HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
05-11-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
2 HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
05-11-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
3 HALL, BRADLEY ALLEN
05-11-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO BRADLEY HALL ONLY ENTERED

05-15-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO DALE OGDEN, ODGEN INC PC, ODGEN AND SHOWALTER PLLC

05-15-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1 OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC
05-15-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1 OGDEN INCORPORATED PC
05-15-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1 OGDEN, DALE WESLEY
05-15-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
2 OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC
05-15-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
2 OGDEN INCORPORATED PC
05-15-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
2 OGDEN, DALE WESLEY
05-15-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
3 OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC
05-15-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
3 OGDEN INCORPORATED PC
05-15-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
3 OGDEN, DALE WESLEY
05-15-2015 DWOP

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (AS TO THE DEFS DALE WESLEY OGDEN, OGDEN INC PC AND OGDEN & SHOWALTER PLLC ONLY)

Document Available (#1029613512)
OGDEN, DALE WESLEY
05-26-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: NON JURY TRIAL NOT HELD, CASE SETTLED PER ANDREW WAKEMAN

05-27-2015 CTFREE

FITZGERALD, MARY: STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO BILLY WAYNE GRADDY JR ONLY

05-27-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1 GRADDY, BILLY WAYNE JR
05-27-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
2 GRADDY, BILLY WAYNE JR
05-27-2015 DISPDWOP

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
3 GRADDY, BILLY WAYNE JR
05-28-2015 ODISM

STIPULATED Order Of Dismissal ( AS CONCERNS BILLY WAYNE GRADDY JR ONLY)

Document Available (#1029613938)
GRADDY, BILLY WAYNE JR

Outcome: See above

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: