Kurian v. SNAPS Holding Company, No. 2:2019cv01757 - Document 137 (D. Nev. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER Granting 131 Amended Joint Pretrial Order. Calendar Call set for 9/17/2024 at 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Bench Trial set for 9/23/2024 at 08:30 AM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/1/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

Download PDF

Kurian v. SNAPS Holding Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Doc. 137 E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD. E. BRENT BRYSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 004933 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Ste. 104 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 364-1234 Telephone (702) 364-1442 Facsimile Ebbesqltd@yahoo.com Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, Thomas K. Kurian 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 THOMAS K. KURIAN, individually, 11 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 12 vs. 13 14 Case No.: 2:19-cv-01757-GMN-EJY SNAPS HOLDING COMPANY, a North Dakota Domestic Corporation, 15 AMENDED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER Defendants/Counterclaimant. 16 17 COMES NOW Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, THOMAS K. KURIAN (hereinafter 18 “KURIAN”), by and through his counsel, E. Brent Bryson, Esq. of the law offices of E. Brent 19 Bryson, Ltd., and Defendant/Counterclaimant SNAPS HOLDING COMPANY (hereinafter 20 “SNAPS”), by and through its counsel, Richard G. Campbell, Jr., Esq., of the law offices of 21 22 23 24 Kaemper Crowell, and John R. Neve, Esq. of the law offices of Quantum Lex, PA, Minnesota Bar No. 278300 (Motion Pro Hac Vice to be filed), and pursuant to Local Rule 16-4 and this Court’s Order (ECF No. 127), and submits their revised Joint Pretrial Order as follows: After pretrial proceedings in this case, 25 26 27 /// /// 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 IT IS SO ORDERED: 2 I. 3 4 5 THIS IS AN ACTION FOR: A. On PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS: May 19, 2014, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant KURIAN (“Kurian”) and Defendant/Counterclaimant SNAPS HOLDING COMPANY (“SNAPS”) executed a Spectrum 6 7 8 Manager Lease Agreement wherein SNAPS leased from KURIAN the right to use certain frequencies contained within call sign WQCP809 (809) issued to Kurian from the FCC. As part 9 of the duties of the lessee, SNAPS was to build out the portion of the frequencies leased to 10 SNAPS and use only equipment approved by the FCC but SNAPS failed to do so. SNAPS 11 additionally failed to pay KURIAN as agreed pursuant to the parties’ lease. 12 Plaintiff (“Kurian”) filed his complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court advancing 13 causes of action sounding in contract law. Defendant (SNAPS) removed the matter pursuant to 14 15 Diversity Jurisdiction to Federal Court. All of Kurian’s causes of action are based on Nevada 16 State law. After removing the matter to Federal Court, SNAPS filed its answer and counterclaim. 17 Plaintiff, therefore, alleged Breach of Contract, Fraud/Misrepresentation, Interference 18 with Prospective Economic Gain, Breach of the Covenant of Goof Faith and Fair Dealing – 19 Contractual, Declaratory Relief, and Injunctive Relief. 20 This Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of 21 22 23 24 contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, the Court granted partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s first cause of action for declaratory relief finding that there is a valid contract between the parties. See ECF No. 55. 25 The Court in its Order (ECF No. 59) left counterclaims for Unjust Enrichment, 26 Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Inducement, Breach of 27 the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Tortious Interference with Prospective 28 2 1 2 3 4 Economic Advantage unresolved. B. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: Objection: Plaintiff Kurian objects to Defendant’s contentions to the extent Defendants are attempting to relitigate this Court’s prior ruling in favor of Plaintiff on summary judgment. 5 6 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objection: It is well-settled that district courts have 7 the authority to reconsider and revise interlocutory orders, such as orders granting motions for 8 partial summary judgment. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir.1996) (“[T]he 9 interlocutory orders and rulings made pre-trial by a district judge are subject to modification by 10 the district judge at any time prior to final judgment.”); Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of 11 Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 465 (9th Cir.1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 12 In May 2014, SNAPS leased the “wireless radio frequency license, WQCP809,” which 13 14 consists of the 217.5-218 MHz and 219.5-220 MHz frequencies, from Kurian “in exchange for a 15 monthly payment of $20,390.00.” See ECF 55, Order on Summary Judgment Motions at 2. In 16 March 2019, Kurian terminated SNAPS’ lease and, in June 2019, he sued SNAPS for the 17 amounts remaining due under the Lease. 18 19 In May 2019, just two months after he terminated SNAPS’ lease, Kurian sold the 219.5220 MHz frequencies to PTC-220, LLC, a conglomeration of the seven largest railroads in the 20 21 22 United States. Kurian sold the frequencies for an amount that entirely mitigates his damages. Further, despite informing PTC-220, LLC in October 2018 that he would terminate SNAPS’ 23 lease to facilitate the sale, Kurian continued to collect rent from SNAPS until March 2019. 24 Kurian breached the clause of “exclusive” rights of SNAPS in the Lease Agreement signed with 25 SNAPS. In addition, Kurian breached the clause of offering “cure period” for the delay in 26 27 payment from SNAPS and disregarded the clause in the Lease Agreement to offer SNAPS an opportunity to buy the spectrum before he terminated the agreement. Kurian’s actions breached 28 3 1 2 3 4 the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Since SNAPS discovered that Kurian mitigated his damages by selling the 219.5-220 MHz frequencies to PTC-220, LLC, Kurian has offered testimony that conflicts with his prior positions in this matter, and with the Court’s summary judgment order. For example, at Kurian’s 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 November 10, 2023 deposition, he testified that SNAPS leased no frequencies and no channels: Q.· · And that lease agreement says -- it's your understanding that that lease agreement SNAPS cannot use any frequencies or any channels? A.· · Exhibit A neither have 217 or 219.· If Exhibit A have the 217 or 219, they can use. Q.· · So if Exhibit A had 219.5 to 220, SNAPS could use those frequencies? 12 A.· · Yes. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q.· · And if Exhibit A had 217.5 to 218, SNAPS could use those frequencies? A.· · That's correct. Q.· · But because Exhibit A contains no frequencies, SNAPS cannot use any frequencies or channels? A.· · That's correct.· That's what exactly the party -- this is the parties' agreement.· I've read this.· It's limited in all respect -limited in all respect by the parties' agreement. This directly contradicts Kurian’s position at summary judgment: First, Snaps received two things as consideration under the Agreement: (1) the exclusive right to operate in the geographic locations and on the channels identified in Exhibit A to the contract, and (2) the option to purchase the frequencies. Specifically, the Agreement provided Snaps, “the right to use certain frequencies of the Licenses in certain areas, as defined in Exhibit A.” These leased frequencies are referred to in the Agreement as “Channels.” Exhibit 1, p.1. This lease provided Snaps “the right to use on an exclusive basis the Channels” specified on Exhibit “A.” Id. The Agreement also included an option contract, pursuant to which Snaps received the right to purchase Kurian’s “right, title and interest to the Channels.” Exhibit 1, paragraph 3.” 28 4 1 It also directly contradicts this Court’s holding on summary judgment that (1) “Plaintiff 2 leased its wireless radio frequency license, WQCP809 to Defendant,” (2) the parties’ lease is 3 4 supported by consideration because “Plaintiff agreed to lease its License to Defendant in exchange for a monthly payment of $20,390.00,” and (3) mutual assent exists because “[u]nder 5 6 7 the express terms of the Agreement, the parties agreed to Defendant providing substantial services to the leased geographical area, in addition to Defendant leasing Plaintiff’s license.” See 8 ECF 55, Order on Summary Judgment Motions at 2, 7-8. Kurian cannot escape his mitigation of 9 damages by changing his testimony when confronted with evidence of the sale to PTC-220, 10 LLC. SNAPS leased the 219.5-220 MHz frequencies, and Kurian mitigated his damages by 11 selling those frequencies to PTC-220, LLC shortly after he terminated SNAPS’ lease. 12 C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 1. On June 27, 2019, the Plaintiff and Counterdefendant THOMAS K. KURIAN 13 14 15 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed his State Court Claim. 2. 16 17 18 19 On September 19, 2019, Defendant and Counterclaimant SNAPS HOLDING COMPANY (hereinafter “Defendant”) was served a Summons and Complaint on September 19, 2019. 3. On October 9, 2019, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal to United States 20 21 22 District Court [ECF No. 1] and its Certificate of Interested Parties [ECF No. 2], 4. On October 9, 2019, the Court issued its Minute Order in Chambers for case 23 removal [ECF No. 3] and the Court’s Standing Order [ECF No. 4] that the case was assigned to 24 the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro. 25 26 27 5. On October 15, 2019, Defendant answered Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 5]. 6. On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a limited response in Opposition [ECF No. 6] to Defendant’s Petition for Removal [ECF No. 1]. 28 5 7. 1 2 On October 24, 2019, Defendant filed a Certificate of Service [ECF No. 7] of the Court’s Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 3] to Plaintiff’s counsel, E. Brent Bryson, Esq. 3 4 8. On October 24, 2019, Defendant filed its Removal Statement [ECF No. 8]. 9. On October 30, 2019, Defendant filed its Response [ECF No. 9] to Plaintiff’s 5 6 limited opposition [ECF No. 6] to Defendant’s Petition for Removal [ECF No 1]. 7 8 9 10 11 10. On November 8, 2019, the parties filed their Joint Status Report [ECF No. 10]. 11. On November 8, 2019, Rory C. Mattson, Esq., of the law firm of Messerli Kramer, filed his Motion for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice - Verified Petition [ECF No. 11]. 12. On November 13, 2019, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 12 12] and Notice of Corrected Image [ECF No. 13] regarding Defendant’s counsel’s Motion for 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice - Verified Petition [ECF No. 11]. 13. On November 25, 2019, the partiers filed a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order [ECF No. 14]. 14. On November 26, 2019, the Court filed its Scheduling Order [ECF No. 15] that granted the parties proposed plan [ECF No 14]. 15. On November 26, 2019, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 16] granting 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant’s counsel’s Verified Petition to practice pro hac vice [ECF No. 11]. 16. On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Parties [ECF No. 17]. 17. On January 13, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Complaint and Add Counterclaims [ECF No. 18]. 18. On January 21, 2020, Defendant filed a Response [ECF No. 19] to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and Add Parties [ECF No. 18]. 28 6 19. 1 2 Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Add Counterclaims [ECF No. 18]. 3 4 On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition [ECF No. 20] to Defendant’s 20. On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Reply [ECF No. 21] to Defendant’s Response [ECF No. 19] to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint [ECF No. 17]. 5 21. 6 7 Defendant’s Motion to Amend Answer and Add Counterclaims [ECF No 18]. 8 9 10 11 On February 3, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply [ECF No 22] in Support of 22. On February 12, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Interim Status Report [ECF No. 23. On February 12, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation for Confidentiality 23]. Agreement and for Protective Order [ECF No. 24]. 12 24. On February 13, 2020, the Court filed an Order [ECF No. 25] granting the parties’ 13 14 15 Stipulation for Confidentiality Agreement / Protective Order [ECF No. 24]. 25. On March 20, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation [ECF No. 26] to amend the 16 scheduling order to extend the discovery cut-off date which the Court DENIED as presented on 17 March 23, 2020 [ECF No. 27]. 18 19 26. On April 21, 2020, the Court entered its Order [ECF No. 28] denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend Complaint to add parties [ECF No. 17]. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27. On April 27, 2020, the Court entered its Order [ECF No. 29] granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend Answer and add counterclaims [ECF No. 18]. 28. On April 27, 2020, Defendant filed its Amended Answer and Counterclaim [ECF No. 30] regarding Petition for Removal [ECF No. 1]. 29. On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed his renewed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to add parties [ECF No. 31]. 30. On May 6, 2020, Plaintiff 28 7 filed his Answer [ECF No. 32] to 1 Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Answer with counterclaims [ECF No. 30]. 2 3 31. On May 15, 2020, Defendant filed its Response [ECF No.33] to Plaintiff’s renewed Motion to Amend Complaint to add parties [ECF No. 31]. 4 32. On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Reply [ECF No. 35] to Defendant’s Response 5 6 7 [ECF No. 33] in support of Plaintiff’s motion for to amend complaint to add parties [ECF No. 31]. 33. 8 9 10 On August 20, 2020, the Court filed its Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 36] denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s renewed motion to amend complaint to add parties [ECF No. 31]. 11 34. On September 24, 2020, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 37] adopting in full 12 the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 36] and denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s 13 14 Renewed Motion for leave to amend complaint to add parties [ECF No. 31]. 15 16 17 18 19 35. On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 36. On November 17, 2020, Defendant filed its Response [ECF No. 40] to 38]. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 38]. 37. On December 14, 2020, Defendant filed its Motion for Partial Summary 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Judgment [ECF No. 43]. 38. On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Response [ECF No. 45] opposing Defendant/Counterclaimant’s motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 43]. 39. On January 6, 2021, Defendant filed its Reply [ECF No. 46] in support of its motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 43]. 40. On April 5, 2021, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 48] that, pursuant to LR 16-5, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah for a settlement 28 8 1 2 3 4 conference. 41. On April 6, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 49] setting a settlement conference for June 15, 2021. 42. On June 15, 2021 the Court filed its Minutes of Settlement Conference 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Proceedings [ECF No. 50] continuing settlement discussions for approximately 60 days and set a telephonic status conference for Monday, August 16, 2021 at 11:00 AM. 43. On August 4, 2021, the parties filed their Stipulation and proposed order [ECF No. 51] requesting the settlement conference set for June 15, 2021 be vacated and reset. 44. On August 5, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No 52] granting the parties’ stipulation to vacate the August 16, 2021 telephonic status conference and reset it to September 12 27, 2021. 13 14 45. On August 26, 2021, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 53] that vacated 15 the Telephonic Status Conference set for September 29, 2021 at 4:00 PM and reset it for October 16 1, 2021 at 9:30 AM. 17 18 19 46. On September 10, 2021, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 54] that vacated the Telephonic Status Conference set for September 29, 2021 at 4:00 PM and reset it for October 1, 2021 at 9:30 AM. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 47. On September 27, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 55] that granted/denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 38] and that granted/denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 43]. 48. On October 1, 2021, the Court filed its Minutes of Proceedings [ECF No. 56] regarding the Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/1/2021 and ordered that on or before October 22, 2021, the parties are to submit either a discovery plan/scheduling order on agreed upon discovery going forward, or a notice to the Court that no agreement can be reached 28 9 1 2 3 4 as discussed in open court and the transcript of these proceedings will serve as the Court's Order. 49. On October 14, 2021 the parties filed their Joint Notice of Compliance [ECF No. 57] stating that counsel for the parties met and conferred and determined that a motion for clarification of the Court’s Order [ECF No. 55] regarding summary judgment. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 50. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed their Joint Motion for Clarification [ECF No. 58] regarding the Court’s Order [ECF No. 55] on the parties’ motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 38 and 43]. 51. On August 23, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 59] Granting the parties’ joint motion for clarification [ECF No. 58]. 52. On September 9, 2021, the parties filed their first Stipulation/Proposed Order 12 [ECF No. 60] to extend the deadline to file the proposed joint pretrial order. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 53. On September 9, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 61] granting the parties’ stipulation [ECF No. 60]. 54. On October 13, 2021, Defendant’s counsel, Brendan R. Tupa of Messerli & Kramer, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, filed a Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice in this case only [ECF No.62]. 55. On October 13, 2022, Defendant filed its Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 of Counsel [ECF No. 63]. 56. On October 13, 2022, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 64] Granting [ECF No. 62] Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice. 57. On October 14, 2022, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 65] Granting [ECF No. 63] Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel. 58. On November 9, 2022, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 67] Granting [ECF No. 66] Stipulation for Extension of Time. 28 10 1 2 3 4 59. On November 10, 2022, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 68] requiring the parties to file a Status Report confirming whether any discovery remains at issue and if a settlement conference before joint pretrial order is due would be futile. 60. On November 23, 2022, the parties files their joint Status Report [ECF No. 69]. 61. On November 28, 2022, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 70] regarding 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Status Report [ECF No. 69] setting a Zoom Discovery hearing for December 13, 2022. 62. On December 13, 2022, the Court filed Minutes [ECF No. 71] of the December 13, 2022 Proceedings and set an in-person Settlement Conference for April 25, 2023 with confidential settlement briefs due by April 18, 2023. 63. On January 4, 2023, the Court filed the Transcript [ECF No. 73] of redacted 12 proceedings on December 13, 2022. 13 14 64. On February 22, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF 15 No. 74], Declaration in support of Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 75], and an 16 Affidavit of Service of Exhibits [ECF No. 77] to Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 17 18 19 65. On March 8, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Extend Time to file the Joint Pretrial Order [ECF No. 78]. 66. On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition [ECF No. 79] to 20 21 22 Defendant's Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 67. On March 8, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 83] 23 striking ECF Nos. 80 and 81, as Plaintiff must file a single Response to Defendant’s Motion for 24 Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 25 26 27 68. On March 9, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 85] vacating its previous Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 83], as Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show Cause is found at ECF No. 79. 28 11 1 2 3 4 69. On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition [ECF No. 86] to Defendant’s Motion to Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74], the Declaration of Plaintiff [ECF No. 86-1] and the Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel [ECF No 86-2]. 70. On March 9, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 87] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 striking ECF No 82, Plaintiff’s Proposed Pretrial Order, and Granting ECF No. 78, Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time to file the Joint Pretrial Order to May 25, 2023. 71. On March 16, 2023, Defendant filed its Reply [ECF No. 88] in Support of its Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 72. On March 16, 2023, Defendant filed its Supplemental Declaration [ECF No. 89] and Exhibit [ECF No 89-1] in Support of its Reply [ECF No. 88] supporting its Motion for Order 12 to Show Cause [ECF No 74]. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 73. On April 18, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order [ECF No. 90] to vacate the in-person Settlement Conference set for April 25, 2023 [ECF No. 71]. 74. On April 18, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 91] vacating the April 25, 2023 Settlement Conference and Continuing the Joint Pretrial due date. 75. On April 21, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion for Leave [ECF No. 92] to Supplement its Reply Brief [ECF No. 88] in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show 20 21 22 Cause [ECF No. 74]. 76. On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response [ECF Nos. 93 and 94] in Opposition 23 to Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Reply Brief [ECF No. 92] in Support of 24 Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 25 26 27 77. On May 10, 2023, Defendant filed its Reply [ECF No. 95] in Support of its Motion for Leave to Supplement Reply Brief [ECF No. 92] in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 28 12 1 2 3 4 78. On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Strike [ECF No. 96] Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition [ECF No. 93] to Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Reply [ECF No. 92] in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 79. On June 12, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 97] 5 6 7 setting a June 21, 2023, 10:00 a.m. Hearing on Defendant’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74], Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Reply Brief in Support of Motion 8 for an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 92], and Plaintiff’s Notice of Withdrawal and Request to 9 Strike ECF No. 93, Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to SNAPS' Motion for Leave to 10 11 Supplement Reply [ECF No. 96]. 80. On June 20, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 98] 12 requiring Defendant file by June 20, 2023 documentary evidence of Plaintiff's Failure to Comply 13 14 with the Court’s Order [ECF No 73] and in support of Defendant’s Motion for Leave to 15 Supplement Reply Brief [ECF No. 92] in Support of Defendant’s Motion for an Order to Show 16 Cause [ECF No. 74]. 17 18 19 81. On June 20, 2023, Defendant filed Exhibits [ECF Nos. 99 and 100]. 82. On June 20, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 101] Striking Defendant’s ECF Nos. 99 and 100. 20 21 22 83. On June 21, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 102] Granting in part and Denying in part Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 23 84. On June 26, 2023, Transcript of June 21, 2023 Hearing [ECF No. 104]. 24 85. On June 26, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 105] temporarily releasing 25 26 27 Transcript [ECF No 104]. 86. On July 5, 2023, Defendant filed its Memorandum [ECF No. 106] in Support of Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to the Court’s Order of June 21, 2023 [ECF No. 102] awarding 28 13 1 attorneys’ fees to Defendant, and Defendant’s Counsel’s Declaration and Exhibit [ECF Nos. 107 2 and 108] in Support of Defendant’s Memorandum [ECF No. 106]. 3 4 87. On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition [ECF No. 109] to Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Attorney's Fees [ECF 102]. 5 88. 6 7 110] to Extend Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Order [First Request]. 89. 8 9 10 On August 14, 2023, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion/Stipulation [ECF No. On August 14, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 111] Granting ECF No. 110, Unopposed Motion/Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Order [First Request]. 11 90. On October 19, 2023, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion/Stipulation [ECF 12 No. 112] to Extend Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Order [Second 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Request to Extend Discovery Deadline; Fifth Request to Extend Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Order]. 91. On October 19, 2023, The Court filed its Order [ECF No. 113] Granting the Unopposed Motion/Stipulation [ECF No. 112] to Extend Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Order. 92. On October 24, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 114] Granting 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant’s Attorney Fees related to its Subpoena to PTC-220. 93. On November 8, 2023, Counsel for Defendant filed Motions for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice via Verified Petition [ECF Nos. 115 and 116]. 94. On November 8, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 117] that deferred its ruling on Counsel for Defendant’s Pro Hac Vice Motions [ECF No. 115 and 116], and Ordered that Petitioners shall have until November 29, 2023, to file corrected Verified Petitions using the "Notice of Corrected Image/Document" event. 28 14 95. 1 2 3 On November 8, 2023, Counsel for Defendant filed Notices of Corrected Image/Document [ECF Nos. 118 and 119] related to their Motions for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice via Verified Petition [ECF Nos. 115 and 116]. 4 96. On November 8, 2023, the Court filed its Orders [ECF Nos. 120 and 121] 5 6 7 Granting Defendant’s Counsels’ verified Petitions to Practice Pro Hac Vice [ECF Nos. 115 and 116]. 97. 8 9 No. 122]. 10 11 On December 20, 2023, the parties filed their proposed Joint Pretrial Order [ECF 98. On January 4, 2024, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 123] setting a Status Conference to explain the deficiencies in the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order January 17, 12 2024, at 10:00 a.m. 13 99. 14 On January 9, 2024, Counsel for Defendant SNAPS, Messerli & Kramer and 15 Kaemper Crowell, pursuant to LR 7-2 and LR IA 11-6(b), filed their motion to withdraw as 16 attorneys of record [ECF No. 124] and Declaration in support thereof [ECF No. 125]. 17 18 19 100. On January 9, 2024, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 126] requiring Defendant’s Counsels’ Motion to Withdraw as Attorney [ECF No. 124] be heard at the Hearing currently set for January 17, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. [ECF No. 123], in addition to addressing the 20 21 deficiencies in the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order. 101. 22 On January 17, 2024, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 127] rejecting 23 the parties’ proposed joint pretrial order [ECF No. 122] to be revised and refiled by February 16, 24 2024, and Granting ECF No. 124, Defendant’s Counsels’ motion to withdraw as attorneys of 25 record. 26 27 102. On January 22, 2024, Defendant’s Counsel filed its Supplement [ECF No. 128] in support of their motion to withdraw [ECF No. 124]. 28 15 103. 1 2 3 4 On February 6, 2024, the Court filed a copy of the Transcript [ECF No. 129] of the January 17, 2024 Proceedings regarding the Court’s Order [ECF No. 127] rejecting the parties’ proposed Joint Pretrial Order [ECF No. 122], Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney [ECF No. 124], and Status Conference held on 1/17/2024 [ECF No. 123]. 5 104. 6 7 On February 7, 2024, Defendant’s new counsel, John R. Neve, Esq. of the law offices of Quantum Lex, PA, Minnesota Bar No. 278300 (Motion Pro Hac Vice to be filed), 8 filed a Notice of Appearance [ECF No. 130] on behalf of the Defendant. 9 II. 10 11 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION Jurisdiction and Venue are proper in this court because the acts and omissions complained of herein occurred and caused harm to Plaintiff in the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, 12 County of Clark. 13 14 III. 15 THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES AND REQUIRE NO PROOF: A. The parties signed an agreement entitled Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement 16 dated May 19, 2014. 17 18 IV. 19 THE FOLLOWING FACTS, THOUGH NOT ADMITTED, WILL NOT BE CONTESTED AT TRIAL BY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY: A. That there was a valid contract between the parties; B. That the Defendants (Snaps) breached the valid contract; C. That the Defendants (Snaps) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair 20 21 22 23 dealing; 24 25 D. That Kurian sold the 219.5-220 MHz frequencies to PTC-220, LLC; 26 27 V. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES OF FACT TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED AT TRIAL 28 16 1 2 3 4 A. PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES OF FACT 1. What are Plaintiff’s damages when the court has determined there to be the existence of a valid, enforceable contract between the above-captioned parties, when Plaintiff performed his duties and obligations that arose under or were imposed upon 5 6 7 Plaintiff by the terms of the contract, but when Defendant did not perform its duties and obligations that arose under or were imposed upon Defendant by the terms of the contract 8 by repeatedly failing to timely pay, or not pay at all, its monthly payment to Plaintiff, a 9 material failure of performance and breach of the terms of the contract resulting in 10 11 damages to Plaintiff. 2. What are Plaintiff’s damages when the court has determined there to be 12 the existence of a valid, enforceable contract between the above-captioned parties that 13 14 imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and 15 execution of the terms of contract, and when Defendant breached its duty of performance 16 and execution of the terms of the contract by (1) failing to build out the leased channels; 17 (2) failing to make timely payments to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the agreement; 18 19 (3) failing to provide Plaintiff with oversights; (4) failing to allow Plaintiff to inspect Defendant’s operations; (5) failing to construct and operate to provide coverage to two- 20 21 22 thirds of the population; (6) failing to operate equipment pursuant to FCC authorization and approval; and by (7) failing to provide engineering studies as per FCC regulation; 23 and thus acted in a manner unfaithful to the purpose, intent and spirit of the parties’ valid 24 and enforceable contract that resulted in Plaintiff’s justified expectations under the 25 contract being denied and required Plaintiff to rebuild the infrastructure himself to save 26 27 his license from being revoked by the FCC but, moreover, resulted in damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $10,194,996.00. 28 17 B. 1 2 DEFENDANT’S ISSUES OF FACT Objection: Plaintiff Kurian objects to Defendant’s issues of fact to the extent 3 Defendants are attempting to relitigate this Court’s prior ruling in favor of Plaintiff on 4 summary judgment. 5 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objection: It is well-settled that district courts 6 7 have the authority to reconsider and revise interlocutory orders, such as orders granting 8 motions for partial summary judgment. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th 9 Cir.1996) (“[T]he interlocutory orders and rulings made pre-trial by a district judge are 10 subject to modification by the district judge at any time prior to final judgment.”); Balla 11 v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 465 (9th Cir.1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 54(b). 13 1. 14 Can Kurian change the Court’s holding on summary judgment that 15 SNAPS leased the “wireless radio frequency license, WQCP809” from Kurian “in 16 exchange for a monthly payment of $20,390.00” by later creating contradictory 17 testimony? See ECF 55, Order on Summary Judgment Motions at 2. 18 2. 19 Did Kurian entirely mitigate his damages by selling the 219.5-220MHz frequencies to PTC-220, LLC after terminating SNAPS’ lease? 20 3. 21 covenant of good faith and fair dealing? 22 23 What are Defendant’s damages for the Plaintiff’s breach of the implied VI. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES OF LAW TO BE TRIED AND 24 DETERMINED AT TRIAL 25 A. 26 27 PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES OF LAW: 1. Is Defendant entitled to relief upon its counterclaims contained in Defendant’s Amended Answer Adding Counterclaims, ECF No. 30? 28 18 2. 1 2 As the Court has determined there to be the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between the above-captioned parties, can Defendant maintain its 3 second cause of action for unjust enrichment in Defendant’s Amended Answer Adding 4 Counterclaims, ECF No. 30. 5 B. 6 1. 7 10 If the Court considers the evidence offered by Kurian after the Court’s summary judgment order, what are the terms of the parties’ contract? 8 9 DEFENDANTS’ ISSUES OF LAW: VII. EXHIBITS A. 11 The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be so marked by the clerk: 12 1. The parties’ executed Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement dated May 19, 13 2014, Bates range KURIAN10387-KURIAN10408 [ECF No. 45-2]. 14 15 B. As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the same will be offered 16 objects to their admission on the grounds stated: 17 1. 18 previously provided prior to the discovery cutoff date. 19 2. Objection: Plaintiff objects to any documents proffered by Defendants not Objection: Defendant objects to any documents proffered by Plaintiff not 20 21 22 previously provided prior to the discovery cutoff date. 1. PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS: Bates Range: 23 24 1. MAP - Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Areas (AMTSA) 1 25 2. Geographically Licensed Frequency for Purchase or Lease 2 26 27 28 3. NorthWestern Energy – Full Spectrum 3-4 4. April 23, 2014 Email Chain Subject: 7:30 PM on Tuesday 3/25/14 --- RE: Regarding Frequency Spectrum in ND region 5-97 19 1 2 3 5. 2000 CENSUS 98-106 6. Map 107 4 7. Unexecuted Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement and Exhibit A 2000 Census 108-127 5 8. May 14, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Revised Agreement as per our discussions 128-286 6 9. May 19, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Background 287-298 10. May 19, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Frequency Lease 299-303 7 8 11. Map – Yampa Valley 304 9 12. May 22, 2014 Email Chain Subject: June Payment 305-310 13. May 30, 2014 Email Chain Subject: State of Montana cancels licenses to 700 MHz public-safety narrowband spectrum 311-325 14. June 2, 2014 Email Chain Subject: ACLARA --- RE: State of Montana cancels licenses to 700 MHz public-safety narrowband spectrum 326-328 15. FCC Form 602 – Federal Communications Commission – Information and Instructions 329-336 16. July 14, 2014 Keller and Heckman LLP July 18, 2014 Correspondence re: Application Requesting Modification of Lease ID L000010890 under station WQCP809 337-340 17. FCC Form 608 Main Form - FCC Application or Notification for Spectrum Leasing Arrangement and Attachments 341-403 18. FCC Form 602 Main Form and Schedule A – Federal Communications Commission Information and Instructions 404-411 19. July 25, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Public Interest Statement 412-545 23 20. August 8, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Payment 546-561 24 21. August 17,2014 Email Subject: Amit Paterl 25 22. Join Alcael-Lucent and Extenet Systems Conference on September 8, 2014 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 562 563-628 23. August 21, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Meeting at CCA 629 24. August 22, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Business Plan for North Dakota 630 28 20 1 2 25. August 22, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Sample Bugatry Pricing for 12 Band 12 eNode B's Hosted off of WCW Core 631-634 26. Business Plan (short form) 635 4 27. Acatel-Lucent Spectrum Holdings (FCC ULS 8/19/2014) ND & MN 636 5 28. August 22, 2014 Proposal #TBD; Tom Navone 637 6 29. August 25, 2014 Email Chain Subject: My meeting with Thomas Kurian 3 7 8 638-809 30. August 25, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Review Sprint Partnership Potential PDF 810-843 31. September 24, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Lease Deposit 844-855 32. September 24, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Need your advise 856-857 33. Executed Signature Pages to License Purchase Agreement between Thomas K. Kurian and T-Mobile License 858-859 9 10 11 12 34. September 29, 2014 Email Subject: Albert Kangas, General Manger and COO of NewCore Wireless 860 15 35. September 29, 2014 Email Subject: Dicky Rural and Seth Arndorfer, CEO of Dakota Carrier Network. 861 16 36. September 29, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: 700 Mhz LTE system 862-872 17 37. September 29, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Re: SRT Communications 873-876 38. September 30, 2014 Email Subject: fyi 877-879 39. September 30, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Meeting in NJ?? 880-866 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 40. October 1, 2014 Email Subject: Ihave been talking to you for sometime about the Bakken you are not doing anything 41. October 1, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: FYI 887 888-906 24 42. October 1, 2014 Email Subject: You may want to read the below FCC related proceedings 907 25 43. October 2, 2014 Email Subject: AMTS Radio 908 44. October 2, 2014 Email Subject: Lease Payment 909 45. October 3, 2014 Email Subject: San Jose Visit 910 26 27 28 21 1 46. FCC - ETSI Specifications Data Sheet 2 47. October 8, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: BEC Technologies 912-913 48. October 8, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: FW: The World of Connectivity and Control Hits Las Vegas 914-969 49. October 28, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: FW: 4 Country Inn & Suites Stafford Virtual Deal Room | Real Capital Markets 970-990 3 4 5 6 7 911 50. November 5, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Re: 1031 Exchange 8 51. November 10, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Hotel Investments 9 52. November 16, 2014 Email Subject: Dakota Venture LLC 10 991-1184 1185-1188 1189 53. November 17, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Promissory note 1190-1191 54. Operating Agreement of Dakota Ventures, LLC 1192-1249 55. Dakota Ventures LLC - Minutes of Organizational Meeting 1250-1251 56. Minnesota Hospitality, Inc. - Promissory Note 1252-1253 15 57. November 18, 2014 Email Chain Subject RE: Promissory Note 1254-1267 16 58. Promissory Note and Security Agreement 1268-1269 17 59. November 22, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Dakota Ventures LLC 1270-1419 60. December 4, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Monthly lease payment 1420-1421 61. December 27, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Real Estate Investments 1422-1424 62. Investment Summary 1425-1432 63. January 7, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Williniston Property 1433-1459 23 64. January 23, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Tom Kurian 1460-1464 24 65. March 6, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Yampa Valley 1465-1510 25 66. Transaction Activity 04/07/2015 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 1511 67. April 8, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: ACH 1512-1524 68. Confirmation - Transaction Date 5/13/2015 1525-1527 28 22 1 69. May 14, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: FW: Payment 1528-1571 2 70. June 8, 2015 Email Chain Subject: Re: Another empty promise 1572-1576 71. July 7, 2015 Email Chain Subject: Payment for Lease 1577-1578 3 4 72. August 7, 2015 Email Subject: Wire 1579 5 6 7 73. August 20, 2015 Email Chain Subject: Re: FCC Form 602 74. By The Numbers - Basin Electric Power Cooperative 1580-1606 1607 8 75. October 12, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Wire for Oct Pmt 1608-1621 9 76. October 26, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Xetawave radio 1622-1623 77. December 22, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Construction of systems 1624-1629 10 11 78. Public Interest Statement FCC Form 608 1630 79. Section 20.9(b) Certification 1631 12 13 80. February 3, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Re: W9 1632-1891 15 81. February 3, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Re: Lease Payment 1892-1902 16 82. FCC Universal Licensing System 1903-1906 17 83. February 9, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Fwd: Fwd: SNAPS FCC Forms 1907-2412 84. FCC Application or Notification for Spectrum Leasing Arrangement 2413-2882 85. March 4, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Lease Payment 2883-2884 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 86. March 28, 2016 Email Chain Subject: [Blank] 2885 87. May 11, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: KTS Agility Radio — RE: 2886-2888 88. June 6, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Re: Fwd: Understanding FCC rules regarding the Lease... 2889-3010 89. FCC DA 16-1167 ORDER and Attachment 3011-3087 24 25 26 90. Confirmation Transaction Date 8/11/2016 3088 27 91. June 29, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Great River Project 28 92. Tait Communications Quote 3089-3090 3091 23 1 2 93. July 20, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: FW: Tait MPT1327 & Mobile Radio 3092-3101 94. November 7, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Action Plan to deploy a network to meet... 3102-3437 95. November 11, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Phone call 3438-3445 96. FCC DA 10–664 Order on Reconsideration 3446-3449 97. January 1, 2017 Email Chain Subject: Re: FCC Construction Requirement 3450-3459 8 98. January 12, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 3460-3469 9 99. January 18, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Sites — RE: Payment 3470-3482 100. 2016 IRS FORM 1099-MISC Thomas K. Kurian 3483-3484 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 101. 2017 IRS FORM W-9 Thomas K. Kurian 3485 12 102. February 1, 2017 Email Chain Subject: Re: W-9 3486-3518 103. March 6, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: lease 3519-3522 15 104. March 13, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 3523-3524 16 105. April 21, 2017 Email Chain Subject: Re: Warren Havens vs. Kurian 3525-3526 17 106. May 4, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: An interesting reading 3527-3528 107. May 12, 2017 Email Subject: MCLM/Choctaw Holding got extension... 3529-3539 108. May 12, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: check 3540-3541 109. FCC DA 17-450 ORDER 3542-3551 110. June 7, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Part 80 or 90? 3552-3569 23 111. June 26, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Reminder — RE: Part 80 or 90? 3570-3591 24 112. July 12, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 3592-3593 25 113. September 14, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 3594-3595 114. September 26, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Returned check 3596-3624 115. October 17, 2017 Email Chain Subject: Re: Payment 3625-3637 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 24 116. November 11, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Checking on the status of the check 3638-3639 117. October 12, 2017 FILED Notice of Entry of Judgment Upon Jury Verdict 3640-3643 4 118. January 25, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Re: Lease payment 3644-3652 5 119. February 16, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Re: Monthly Lease payment 3653-3658 6 120. March 12, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: NB-IoT 3659-2660 1 2 3 7 8 121. March 13, 2018 Email Subject: Did you send the payment? 3661 122. March 16, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment not received still 3662-3674 123. April 18, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: status of check 3675-3681 11 124. FCC 601 Main Form – FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization 3682-3712 12 125. May 10, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: FN 0008200765 §90.259 App. Re WQCP816, WQJW656, WQNZ336, WQOC595 3713-3740 126. FCC 601 Main Form – FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization 3741-3762 15 127. May 11, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: Havens 3763-3772 16 128. May 14, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: FCC filing and check 3773-3783 17 129. ComStudy Mammoth Mtn.rs2 Monday, May 14, 2018 3784-3786 130. FCC Petition to Deny in the Matter of Polaris PNT PBC 3787-3791 20 131. May 18, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Re: Fwd: FN 0008200765 §90.259 App. Re WQCP809 3792-4051 21 132. May 22, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: $250 Million for PTC Projects 4052-4053 9 10 13 14 18 19 22 23 133. May 31, 2018 Email Subject: Re: Just checking into see if guys planning to make a timely payment this month. 24 134. July 17, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Re: Fwd: Payment 4055-4098 25 135. May 31, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: PTC220 4099-4113 26 27 136. September 28, 2018 Email Subject: MiMax 137. May 31, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 28 25 4054 4114 4115-4118 1 138. March 27, 2019 Thomas K. Kurian Letter to Sanjay Patel 2 139. January 8, 2019 Thomas K. Kurian Communication to Sanjay, NetHertz 3 4 5 6 7 8 4119-4120 4121 140. December 8, 2010 Letter to FCC 4122-4137 141. January 8, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Re: Termination of certain AMTS license for the failure to provide substantial service 4138-4183 142. January 8, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: Thomas K Kurian's 03/26 Salt Lake City trip (VR2J7K): Your reservation is confirmed. 4184-4189 143. March 23, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: Thomas K Kurian's 03/30 Phoenix trip (VRPBWK): Your reservation is confirmed. 4190-4195 144. March 23, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: Thomas K Kurian's 04/03 El Paso trip (VSF2BU): Your reservation is confirmed. 4196-4202 145. March 25, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Re: Please call me on phone ASAP 4203-4207 146. March 27, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Re: Next Payment 4208-4873 147. FCC DA 18-322 – Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 4874-4882 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 148. April 3, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Re: Asset Purchase of AMTS Spectrum in the 217.5-218 MHz band 4883-4896 149. FCC Spectrum Leasing 4897-4898 16 17 18 150. Substantial Service 4899 19 151. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations 4900-4924 20 152. FCC Order 4925-4942 21 153. October 22, 2020 Republic Services Las Vegas Payment History 4944-4953 22 154. April 25, 2016 Crown Castle Letter to Vegas Wireless LLC 4954 155. First Amendment to Short Form Tower License Agreement 4955-4962 156. Mutual Nondisclosure Agreement 4971-4973 157. June 21, 2018 Gmail Chain Subject: Idaho Power Spectrum Purchase 4974-4982 27 158. Confidentiality Agreement 4983-4986 28 159. WQCP 809 Allocation Chart 23 24 25 26 4987 26 1 160. ECF NO. 45-2: EXHIBIT 1: Executed Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement 2 161. ECF NO. 45-3: EXHIBIT 2: February 3, 2016 Email Chain Regarding: W9 3 4 5 6 7 8 163. ECF NO. 45-4: EXHIBIT 3: December 22, 2015 Email Chain Regarding: Construction of Systems 164. ECF NO. 45-5: EXHIBIT 4: November 7, 2016 Email Chain Regarding: Action Plan to Deploy a Network to Meet the FCC’s Coverage Requirement 165. ECF NO. 45-6: EXHIBIT 5: January 1, 2017 Email Chain Regarding: FCC Construction Requirement 166. ECF NO. 45-7: EXHIBIT 6: June 6, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Understanding FCC Rules 9 10 11 167. ECF NO. 45-8: EXHIBIT 7: March 27, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Next Payment 168. ECF NO. 45-9: EXHIBIT 8: Register of Actions dated December 22, 2020 for Case No.: A-19-797577-C, Thomas K. Kurian vs. Snaps Holding Company 12 13 169. ECF NO. 45-10: EXHIBIT 9: Deposition Excerpts of August 5, 2022 Deposition of Plaintiff Thomas Kurian - Pages 1, 138, 139, and 217. 14 170. Deposition Transcript from the November 10, 2023 deposition of Plaintiff Thomas Kurian. 15 16 17 18 171. Parties’ executed Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement dated May 19, 2014, Bates range KURIAN10387-KURIAN10408 [ECF No. 45-2]. 172. Parties’ executed Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 21, 2013, Bates range KURIAN10445-KURIAN10461. 20 173. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory and Document Responses to SNAPS’ Requests and Pursuant to ECF 102; including Bates range: KURIAN05040-KURIAN05043; KURIAN10443-KURIAN10461. 21 Plaintiff reserves the right to use any and all exhibits disclosed and/or admitted by 19 22 Defendant in this matter. 23 Plaintiff reserves the right to use impeachment exhibits as permitted by applicable court 24 25 26 law. a. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibits: 27 1. Defendant objects to any documents proffered by Plaintiff 28 not previously provided prior to the discovery cutoff date. 27 1 2 3 4 2. DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS: 1. All exhibits identified by Plaintiff. 2. April 23, 2014 Email Chain Subject: 7:30 PM on Tuesday 3/25/14 --- RE: Regarding Frequency Spectrum in ND region, Bates KURIAN 05-97. 5 6 7 8 3. May 14, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Revised Agreement as per our discussions, Bates KURIAN 128-286. 5. March 6, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Yampa Valley, Bates KURIAN 1465-1510. 9 10 5. February 3, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Re: W9, Bates KURIAN 1632-1891. 11 6. February 9, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Fwd: Fwd: SNAPS FCC Forms Bates 12 KURIAN 1907-2412. 13 7. Lease Spectrum Range Map, Bates KURIAN10464 14 8. Asset Purchase Agreement between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC for 219.5-220MHz 15 frequencies in call sign WQCP809, dated, May 31, 2019, and related closing documents, 16 17 18 Bates PTC-220_SNAPS_Subpoena_000001-036. 9. Email communications between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC, Bates PTC- 19 220_SNAPS_Subpoena_003097-3102. 20 10. Email communications between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC, Bates PTC- 21 220_SNAPS_Subpoena_003113-3115. 22 23 11. Email communications between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC, Bates PTC220_SNAPS_Subpoena_003690-91. 24 25 26 12. Email communications between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC, Bates PTC220_SNAPS_Subpoena_000173-178 27 13. Transcript from August 5, 2020 deposition of Plaintiff Thomas Kurian. 28 14. Transcript from November 10, 2023 deposition of Plaintiff Thomas Kurian. 28 1 15. Transcript from July 19, 2023 deposition of Kevin Stokes, representative for PTC- 2 220, LLC. 3 4 Defendant reserves the right to use all exhibits disclosed and/or admitted by Plaintiff in this matter. 5 6 7 Defendant reserves the right to use impeachment and rebuttal exhibits as permitted by applicable court rules. a. 8 9 Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s Exhibits: 1. 10 Plaintiff objects to the use of depositions by Defendant where the Defendant failed to provide the pages of any depositions 11 Defendant plans to use. See ECF 15, Discovery Plan and 12 Scheduling Order. 13 2. 14 Plaintiff objects to any of Defendant’s exhibits if the 15 documents were not provided previously before the discovery 16 cutoff date. 17 C. 18 Electronic Evidence: The parties are likely to present electronic evidence for out of state witnesses who 19 are now parties. 20 21 22 23 D. Depositions: 1. Plaintiff will offer the following depositions: a. Deposition excerpts of the August 5, 2022 deposition of Plaintiff 24 Thomas Kurian, Pages 1, 81, 84, 85, 86, 101, 102, 103, 104, 138, 25 139; 192, and 217. 26 27 b. Deposition excerpts of the July 29, 2020 deposition of Sanjay Patel, Pages 1, 37, 39, 58, 59, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 28 29 82, 92, 93, 104, 116, 117, 118. 1 2 c. 3 Deposition excerpts of the July 19, 2023 deposition of PTC-220, LLC’s 30(b)(6) witness Kevin Stokes, Pages 1, 11, 18, 21, 22, 23, 4 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 5 48, 49, 50 , 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 6 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 87, 89, 148, 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 7 159, 161. 8 9 d. 10 Deposition excerpts of the July 30, 2020 deposition of Daivesh Sanghvi, Pages 1, 5, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 11 32, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 12 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 87. 13 e. 14 Plaintiff reserves the right to use any and all deposition testimony for any lawful purpose. 15 2. 16 17 Defendant will offer the following depositions: a. 18 July 19, 2023 deposition of Kevin Stokes, representative for PTC220, LLC. Based upon new counsel’s recent retention, Defendant 19 is unable to identify exact page numbers at this time. Defendant 20 states that Kevin Stokes is a key witness and believes the majority 21 of his deposition testimony will be relevant. 22 b. 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant reserves the right to use all deposition testimony for any lawful purpose. E. Objections to depositions: 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s depositions as follows: 2. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s depositions as follows: 28 30 None. 1 a. 2 Defendant has not identified page numbers of the depositions sought to be 3 4 5 used. See ECF 15, except for purposes of impeachment. VIII. THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES MAY BE CALLED BY THE PARTIES AT TRIAL: 6 7 Plaintiff objects to the use of depositions by Defendant where A. 1. PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES: 11 Thomas K. Kurian C/o E. Brent Bryson, Esq. 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Ste. 104 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 364-1234 Telephone (702) 364- 1442 Facsimile Ebbesqltd@yahoo.com 12 Plaintiff is expected to testify regarding the terms and provisions of the parties’ contract, 13 and how the contract came about, Defendants’ breach of the contract, Plaintiff’s efforts to 14 mitigate his damages, Plaintiff’s attempts to mitigate damages, and Plaintiff’s attempts to 8 9 10 15 informally resolve the dispute and Plaintiff’s damages. 16 17 2. 18 19 John C. Gazzo 12950 Quebec Street Brighton, CO 80602 (303) 949-1266 Telephone Mr. Gazzo is expected to testify regarding the use of his transmitting site by SNAPS 20 21 22 23 using unauthorized equipment which is not certified by the FCC as well as his conduct in violation of the parties’ agreement. 3. Sanjay Patel President and CEO of SNAPS Holding Company 24 Mr. Patel is expected to testify regarding the parties’ contract and SNAPS conduct in 25 26 27 breaching the parties’ agreement. 4. Daivesh Sanghvi Vice President of SNAPS Holding Company 28 31 Mr. Sanghvi is expected to testify regarding the construction and substantial coverage of 1 2 3 the FCC Stations as well as his knowledge regarding the parties’ contract. 4 Thomas Klyve Controller for SNAPS Holding Company 5 Mr. Klyve is expected to testify regarding his knowledge about payments to Plaintiff 6 7 5. pursuant to the parties’ contract. 8 Steve Lee Direct of IDA 9 Mr. Lee is expected to testify regarding the installation and operation of the licenses. 10 11 6. 7. PTC-220, LLC’s 30(b)(6) witness regarding the contract between Thomas K. Kurian and PTC-220, LLC, as well as his knowledge regarding the instant action. 12 1. Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Witnesses: 13 Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s witnesses to the extent those witnesses 14 15 will testify to matters decided in the Court’s summary judgment order, and to the 16 parties’ settlement discussions. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. DEFENDANT’S WITNESSES 1. Sanjay Patel President and CEO of SNAPS Holding Company Mr. Patel is expected to testify regarding the parties’ lease, SNAPS’ payments under the lease, and the parties’ communications. 2. Daivesh Sanghvi Vice President of SNAPS Holding Company Mr. Sanghvi is expected to testify regarding the parties’ lease, SNAPS’ payments under the lease, and the parties’ communications. 3. Thomas K. Kurian 27 28 32 1 Mr. Kurian is expected to testify regarding the parties’ lease, the parties’ 2 communications, and his contract with PTC-220, LLC for the 219.5-220MHz frequencies, and 3 the money he received for the frequencies. 4 4. Kevin Stokes, representative for PTC-220, LLC, by deposition. 5 Mr. Stokes is expected to testify regarding the Asset Purchase Agreement between PTC- 6 220, LLC and Kurian for the 219.5-220 MHz frequencies and the compensation Kurian 7 received for the frequencies. 8 9 10 1. IX. 11 Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants’ Witnesses: THE ATTORNEYS OR PARTIES HAVE MET AND JOINTLY OFFER THESE THREE TRIAL DATES 12 1. September 3-6, 2024; 13 2. September 16-20, 2024; 14 3. September 23-27, 2024. 15 16 17 X. None. TRIAL It is estimated that trial will take a total of 3-5 days. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 18 19 DATED this 16th day of February, 2024. DATED this 16th day of February, 2024. 20 E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD. QUANTUM LEX, P.A. By: /s/ E. Brent Bryson, Esq. E. BRENT BRYSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 004933 E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD. 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Ste. 104 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 364-1234 Telephone (702) 364-1442 Facsimile Ebbesqltd@yahoo.com Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, Thomas K. Kurian By: /s/: John R. Neve, Esq. JOHN R. NEVE, ESQ. Minnesota Bar No. 278300 Motion Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed QUANTUM LEX, PA 6800 France Avenue South, Suite 405 Minneapolis, MN 55435 (952) 746-2400 Telephone jneve@quantumlex.io Attorney for Defendant/Counterclaimant, Snaps Holding Company 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33 1 DATED this ____ day of December, 2023. 2 KAEMPFER CROWELL 3 By: /s/: RICHARD G. CAMPBELL, JR. Nevada Bar No. 001832 50 W. Liberty Street, Suite 700 Reno, NV 89501 (775) 852-3900 Telephone (775) 327-2011 Facsimile Rcampbell@kcnvlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant, SNAPS 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 XI. ACTION BY COURT bench This case is set for a jury trial on the fixed/stacked calendar on _9/23/2024 8:30 a.m. _________at ______. 9/17/2024 at 9:00 a.m. Calendar call will be held on _______________________________________________. This pretrial order has been approved by the parties to this action as evidenced by their signatures or the signatures of their attorneys hereon, and the order is hereby entered and will govern the trial of this case. This order may not be amended except by court order and based 17 18 upon the parties’ agreement or to prevent manifest injustice. 19 20 21 22 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 34

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.