Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 116.9 kB
Pages: 3
Date: June 27, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 516 Words, 2,984 Characters
Page Size: 599.041 x 844.08 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8868/51-5.pdf

Download Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware ( 116.9 kB)


Preview Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-01516-KAJ

Document 51-5

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED S'I'ATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRIC'L' OF DELAWARE
...
,

.

.

.

".

..

MONEY CIINTERS<)ti AMERICA, TNC., a SUCCCSSO~ intcrest by mcrger to s in K A M E S EN'I'I'XTAMMIINT, WC.,
a11 d

i
1 1 1
1

1

AVAILAH1,E MONEY, INC.,

1
C1.A. No. 04-CV-15 16 (KAJ)

H0WAKI.I W.RLGl:,N and CUAST ATM,

1
1 1

j

DEC1,ARATlON OF KEVIN C:. ROYLE IN SiJPPORT OF CROSS-MOTIONTO ENFOKCJE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND I;'NOPPOSITION TO PLALNTTFFS' MOTION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL AND EN'FORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I Kevin C. Bayle declarc that:
1. 1 m an atlarncy licensed to practice law i t,he state or California and J n

have hem admitted to practice in Ueleware pro hoc vice for the matter of Money Centers
of America ct, al, v. Howard Regan and Coast ATM., C.A. No. 04-CV-1516 (KAJ). If

asked to testify, T would stare thc following. 2.

On Tiisday, June 14,2005, I spoke wilh Mr. Beausolicl and advised him

that my cliont would sign the Consent t o Assignment of 1,icense Agennenl but I believed that the language did not spr;.cificnllyrclcase them f o the ccmtract. 1 also rm

Case 1:04-cv-01516-KAJ

Document 51-5

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 2 of 3

advised him that we wantcd to resalvc the mallet and that we should also have the key

man insurmcc policy ready to trmskr (pursuant l Ihc scttlernenl agrecmcnt). 1 advised o
Mr. I3ca1isslielthat the Chicf l'inancial Officer of Mcncy Centers, Jay Walsh, had
mnlactcd tne regarding that insurance policy and it would be best lo resolve these two

outstanding issucs at the samc time so that we can xsolvc the entire matrcr. I advised

Mr.Bcausoliel that f was engaged in the Fcdcral Dis~rict Court, Cen~ral District of
California on a mattcr that would take most of thc day, but T intcndcd on reviewing the
Consent tcr Assignment as soon a possible. s 3.

On Thursday, June 16,2005, Stephen Regan and myself had a conference

Call with Mr. Ueausolicl in which changes to lhc achwledgcmcnt were discussed and

Mr. Heuasoli~l aadvisd that we would make changes so that thc agrccrnent in h.4 wm releascd my clicnts and wc advised that thcre was a renn regarding reporting surch.argcs
that only his client could provide. Thc requisite changes were m d c and on June 17,

2005, I forwnrded the chrmgcs to Mr. Rt.,?usolieland tcqucsted thal hc advise us when thc
documenls wcre initialed and signed by his clicnt and Irvinc. 4,
On Tuesday, June 2 1,2005,I received a copy of the Consent ol'

Assignment csf License Agreement that was initialed by Mr. Wolfington but nut signed hy
lrvinc, Thal notwithslanding my client signcd the dclcument and it was irnmcdiately

Case 1:04-cv-01516-KAJ

Document 51-5

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 3 of 3

fonvardcd to Mr. Roausoliel, wha acknowledged the rcceipt by replying to my emnil.
5.

T declm under penalty of pejury under the laws ol'the United States 01'

Arnerioa that the foregoing is true and correct.