PCMR v. Talisker Corp.: judge declines ‘dueling letters’ court date | ParkRecord.com

PCMR v. Talisker Corp.: judge declines ‘dueling letters’ court date


The judge presiding over the lawsuit between Park City Mountain Resort and a firm under the Talisker Corporation umbrella issued a written statement last Friday declining to schedule a court date to discuss recent letters sent to him by the two sides centered on revelations about a separate letter critical to the case.

In the two-page document, classified as a minute entry, Judge Ryan Harris said if either side wants to address the two letters during a court date they should file a motion asking to do so.

The Talisker Corporation side in its Aug. 22 letter to Harris requested a conference in front of the judge while the PCMR side’s Aug. 19 letter to the judge referred to a chance to answer questions. The response from Harris refers to "dueling letters" as he declines the request for a court date.

"While the Court certainly appreciates being kept up to date on issues that have apparently come to light in the case, in the absence of any pending motion specifically regarding the issues raised in the dueling letters the Court is not inclined to schedule an amorphous ‘conference’ to ‘address’ those issues," Harris wrote.

In the statement, Harris said a hearing is scheduled on Sept. 18 to discuss a different matter in the case. The statement said the Sept. 18 hearing "should not and will not include any substantive discussion of the issues raised in the letters . . . " unless they pertain to the hearing itself. The hearing will be centered on a PCMR side bid to amend the lawsuit.

The statement from Harris is seen as something that will be received well by PCMR since it was the Talisker Corporation side that asked for the conference.

Recommended Stories For You

The "dueling letters" Harris referred to in his statement addressed details about a 2011 letter that PCMR believed to be written confirmation it was extending its lease of Talisker Corporation land where the resort operates. The lawsuit centers on the lease.

Go back to article