Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 489

Filed 12/09/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT P.J., et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al. Defendants. : : : : : : CIVIL NO. 291CV00180 (RNC)

DECEMBER 8, 2004

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME The plaintiffs request a one week enlargement of the time within which to file their Reply to Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs. In support of this Motion the plaintiffs represent the following: 1. The plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs was filed on October 4, 2004. [Doc. ## 482, 483.] 2. Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs was filed on November 17, 2004 [Doc. #485]. 3. Under Local Rule 7(d) plaintiffs' Reply brief was due on December 1, 2004. 4. On November 22, 2004 the plaintiffs moved for an enlargement of the December 1, 2004 date due to counsel's vacation schedule and demands of other cases. [Doc. #487]. 5. On November 29, 2004, the Court granted the Motion and ordered the filing of the Reply on December 13, 2004. [Doc. #488]. 6. Since then plaintiffs have determined that the transcript of the Status Conference held by the Court on November 19, 2001 may be helpful in addressing defendants' argument that plaintiffs have waived their right to costs and attorneys' fees incurred during the five

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 489

Filed 12/09/2004

Page 2 of 3

year implementation period of the Settlement Agreement. 7. As the defendants' assertion that all prospective fees have been waived is inconsistent with representations made by defendants to the Court and, if accepted, may undermine plaintiffs' ability to represent the class, careful consideration of all representations to the Court is important. 8. Plaintiffs have ordered the transcript of the Status Conference, but have been advised by the Court Reporter that it will not be transcribed and available until December 10, 2004 or December 13, 2004. 9. Plaintiffs therefore request an enlargement of the time until December 20, 2004 so that the transcript of the Status Conference can be considered in connection with the preparation of plaintiffs' Reply. 10. Opposing counsel, Ralph Urban, Esq., has been contacted and represents that he does not oppose this Motion. 10. This is the second enlargement of time filed with respect to this time limitation. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs request an enlargement of the time within which their Reply brief is due from December 13, 2004 to December 20, 2004.

PLAINTIFFS, By /s/ David C. Shaw David C. Shaw, Esq. Fed. Bar No. ct05239 34 Jerome Ave., Suite 210 Bloomfield, CT 06002 (860) 242-1238 Email [email protected]
2

Case 2:91-cv-00180-RNC

Document 489

Filed 12/09/2004

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed first class, postage prepaid to all counsel of record on December 8, 2004. Ralph E. Urban, Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of Connecticut P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 Frank J. Laski, Esq. Mental Health Legal Advisors 294 Washington St., Suite 320 Boston, MA 02108

/s/ David C. Shaw David C. Shaw, Esq.

3