Case 2:05-cv-02257-KHV-JPO Document 25 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

GRACELAND COLLEGE CENTER FOR )
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND )
LIFELONG LEARNING, INC., )
d/b/a SKILLPATH )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.05-2257-KHV
)
MICHAEL F. PRICE, )
BizSummits LLC, and )
Specialty Holdings LLC d/b/a VC South, )
)
)
Defendants. )

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND SUPPORTING SUGGESTIONS

The defendants move the court for leave to file Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First

Amended Complaint out of time in light of the court’s order entered today dismissing

Defendant’s original motion to dismiss as moot. This motion is unopposed by plaintiff. In

further support of this motion, defendants state:

1. Counsel for plaintiff and defendants have been working cooperatively with regard

to discovery on the original motion to dismiss filed by the defendant Michael Price. Through the

course of that discovery, plaintiff discovered other entities which it sought to name.

2. Plaintiff thereafter moved for leave to amend its original complaint after

defendant Price had moved to dismiss that complaint. Defendant did not oppose the motion, and
Case 2:05-cv-02257-KHV-JPO Document 25 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 3

the court granted the motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff thereafter filed its amended complaint

naming two additional entities.

3. Defendant proceeded under the apparently mistaken assumption that the motion to

dismiss the original complaint remained before the court because plaintiff’s amendment only

addressed the technical addition of new parties that had been referenced in the original

complaint. For instance, VC South was listed as a d/b/a for Mr. Price as opposed to a d/b/a for

Specialty Holdings LLC.

4. Given the court’s ruling yesterday that defendant’s motion to dismiss is moot

given the filing of the amended complaint, defendants’ responsive pleading to the Amended

Complaint is now out of time because a responsive pleading was due on Friday, November 25,

2005, the day after Thanksgiving.

5. Accordingly, attached hereto is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First

Amended Complaint, which is in all material respects identical to defendant’s original motion to

dismiss, except that it is made on behalf of the additional entities named by plaintiff in the

amended complaint and the word defendant has been pluralized throughout the papers. This is

the motion, and the attached memorandum in support of the motion, for which defendants’ now

move the court for leave to file.

6. Counsel for defendants has contacted counsel for plaintiff, and plaintiff does not

oppose this motion or the filing of defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction.

7. Counsel for defendants apologizes for any inconvenience this has caused the

Court.

2
Case 2:05-cv-02257-KHV-JPO Document 25 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted,

HELDER LAW FIRM

/s/ Jan P. Helder, Jr.
Jan P. Helder, Jr., KS #14440
th
2300 Main Street, 9 Floor
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Telephone: (816) 561-5000
Facsimile: (816) 561-5001
jph@helderlaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of November, 2005, this document was

electronically filed with the Court, which automatically notified the following electronic filing

participant:

Robert O. Lesley, Esq.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
4520 Main Street, Suite 1100
Kansas City, MO 64111
rlesley@sonnenschein.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Jan P. Helder, Jr.
Attorney for Defendants

3