MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson
OPPOSITION: 1) Defendant David Glasser, 2) Defendant Phillip Glasser
In May 2018, Plaintiff Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson entered into a Settlement Agreement with Defendants David Glasser (“David”), Phillip Glasser (“Phillip”), and Marvin Peart (collectively, “Defendants”) to settle a long running dispute over monies owed to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff requests this Court to issue an Order directing Defendants David Glasser, Phillip Glasser, and Marvin Peart to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their conscious disregard of the Court's March 12, 2020, Amended Order Granting Erlendsson’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in the Amount of $112,322.94, within 10 days of the Order.
Defendants David Glasser and Phillip Glasser each filed an opposition. No opposition was received from defendant Marvin Peart.
Timeliness: Plaintiff objects to David’s late opposition but the Court will consider the opposition in making its r
Hearing Date
November 04, 2020
Type
Sister State Judgment (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Legacy Judgment 10/26/2012
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson
OPPOSITION: 1) Defendant David Glasser, 2) Defendant Phillip Glasser
In May 2018, Plaintiff Gunnlaugur Petur Erlendsson entered into a Settlement Agreement with Defendants David Glasser (“David”), Phillip Glasser (“Phillip”), and Marvin Peart (collectively, “Defendants”) to settle a long running dispute over monies owed to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff requests this Court to issue an Order directing Defendants David Glasser, Phillip Glasser, and Marvin Peart to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for their conscious disregard of the Court's March 12, 2020, Amended Order Granting Erlendsson’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in the Amount of $112,322.94, within 10 days of the Order.
Defendants David Glasser and Phillip Glasser each filed an opposition. No opposition was received from defendant Marvin Peart.
Timeliness: Plaintiff objects to David’s late opposition but the Court will consider the opposition in making its r