SAM Magazine—Park City, Utah, July 10, 2014—As the lawsuit between Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR) and Talisker Land Holdings heads toward two key August dates, the two sides have agreed to a series of steps aimed at resolving the case—or to deal with a failed effort at agreement.

Talisker attorneys have submitted a timeline for several of these steps, and PCMR agreed to them. Most of the timeline precedes the Aug. 15 mediation and a subsequent hearing scheduled for Aug. 27.

The steps outlined in the filing include: SAM Magazine—Park City, Utah, July 10, 2014—As the lawsuit between Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR) and Talisker Land Holdings heads toward two key August dates, the two sides have agreed to a series of steps aimed at resolving the case—or to deal with a failed effort at agreement.

Talisker attorneys have submitted a timeline for several of these steps, and PCMR agreed to them. Most of the timeline precedes the Aug. 15 mediation and a subsequent hearing scheduled for Aug. 27.

The steps outlined in the filing include:

1. PCMR provides Talisker with an inventory of items PCMR believes it is entitled to remove from the property, on July 10. PCMR has said in the past that this includes many of the lifts; Talisker has argued that this not be allowed.

2) four days after receiving the inventory—that is, during the week of July 14—Talisker may begin a two-day inspection of the property.

3) shortly after the two-day inspection, the two sides meet to narrow any disputes regarding what property PCMR may remove. This meeting is expected to take place on Aug. 1.

4) on Aug. 15, two weeks after this resolution meeting, the sides submit filings centered on any remaining disputed property.

5) the court holds a hearing about the eviction on Aug. 27.

There's a second set of deadlines, too. District Judge Ryan Harris on July 1 signed a de facto eviction order against PCMR, but stayed its enforcement until at least Aug. 27. This order also outlines a range of procedures and sets dates for them. It addresses PCMR's attempt to further postpone or stay the enforcement of an eviction order, the bond that PCMR would be required to post if the eviction order is further stayed, and gathering expert opinions through the discovery process of a lawsuit.

To that end, the order calls for:

• Memorandums from both parties concerning a further postponement of the stay of enforcement of the eviction order. Talisker has until July 25 to enter an opposition memorandum; PCMR has until Aug. 15 to reply to the reply.

• Both sides are scheduled to file briefings on Aug. 15 regarding a bond that PCMR would be required to post if the judge further stays an eviction.

• Expert discovery regarding damages in the case are set to take place from Aug. 18 to Nov. 24. There are two separate issues to be settled:

PCMR has argued that Talisker failed to inform PCMR in a timely manner in 2011 that Talisker believed PCMR's lease had expired; PCMR spent roughly $7 million on improvements with the understanding that the lease had not expired. It seeks damages as a result.

For its part, Talisker is seeking damages Talisker is seeking damages from PCMR after winning a ruling that the resort unlawfully occupied the disputed terrain after the expiration of the leases. The damages would have accrued over the course of the past three ski seasons.

• Previous
  NY State Audit of ORDA Finds Problems
• Next
  Creditor Seeks Foreclosure Against Clear Fork Resort