Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00740-RNC

Document 22

Filed 01/12/2004

Page 1 of 4

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 2060 EAST MAIN ST., INC. : Plaintiff vs. THE CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT Defendant : : JANUARY 9, 2004 CASE NO. 3:03CV740(RNC)(DFM)

MOTION TO EXTEND PERIOD FOR REQUESTING A PRE-FILING CONFERENCE CONCERNING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1. The Case Management Plan entered by Honorable Donna F. Martinez,

U.S.M.J. on September 10, 2003 required that a Request for Pre-filing Conference regarding a Motion for Summary Judgment must be submitted on or before January 26, 2004. 2. On December 2, 2003 a Motion to Intervene in the existing case was filed by a third party, which Motion was duly objected to by the Defendant. Briefing on that Motion has been completed and the parties are waiting for a decision on this Motion. 3. The Plaintiffs have filed discovery requests to the Defendant, who received an extension of time to answer discovery until December 23, 2003. Although said

discovery has yet to be answered, the Defendant indicated that answers will be duly

Case 3:03-cv-00740-RNC

Document 22

Filed 01/12/2004

Page 2 of 4

filed in a brief period of time (prior to the thirty [30] day limit in the Case Management Plan). 4. Although the Plaintiffs' counsel has discussed with Defendant's counsel the proposed basis for a Summary Judgment Motion, pursuant to the Court's Order, such discussion cannot be finalized until after the Defendant has answered all of the Plaintiffs' discovery and the Court has acted upon the Motion to Intervene filed by the aforementioned third party. 5. The Plaintiffs have indicated to the Defendant that many of the complicated legal issues pending in this matter can be addressed in the form of a Summary Judgment Motion, thereby, simplifying the eventual trial of this matter. These issues include, not only the issues put forth by the Plaintiffs in its Complaint, but would address several of the Special Defenses raised by the Defendant in their answer. However, until Defendant's discovery has been fully answered and a decision from the Court has been rendered on the Intervention Motion, it would be difficult for the Plaintiffs to frame a full and meaningful Summary Judgment Motion. 6. This is the first request to extend the period for filing for a pre-conference hearing regarding a Motion for Summary Judgment. 7. The Defendant has no objection to this Motion.

Case 3:03-cv-00740-RNC

Document 22

Filed 01/12/2004

Page 3 of 4

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court extend the date for filing Request for a Pre-filing Conference Regarding a Motion for Summary Judgment for fifteen (15) days after Defendant has fully answered Plaintiffs' discovery, and a decision on the pending Motion to Intervene by Jack Dempsey's, Inc. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Daniel A. Silver, Esq. Silver & Silver LLP One Liberty Square New Britain, CT 06051 (860) 225-3518 fed # ct 08183

Case 3:03-cv-00740-RNC

Document 22

Filed 01/12/2004

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION Service certified to the following counsel of record this ____ day of January, 2004: Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, Esq. Office of the City Attorney 999 Broad Street, 2nd floor Bridgeport, CT 06604

______________________________ Daniel A. Silver Commissioner of the Superior Court