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

4.-—--l—...~
Case 3:03-cv-00712-V\]_WE Document 26 Filed O1/O9¢2O0:}l•bC`VP*.·i1i:jg "iNo(i`iN ""T " 9`
I \\.D i
l 5 i%`T” ;‘. il iZl§Z li
Q t' it 1; E
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT M [_ _ U
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT lliflll Jrml · .> A l0- 0 8
I
GERTRUDE BAYONNE, : A
I 1>1amnrr, l
: Civ. Action N0. _
Q 3:03CV0712(WWE) ~N°`
ig V. P ` 2
PITNEY BOWES, INC., : A
( § Defendant. DECEMBER 31, 2003
i - . § PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
cg I E MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO l
BQ § DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE A i
. QE REVISED AMENDED COMPLAINT
l i r
I T i ,— On December 22, 2003, Plaintiff tiled a Motion for Extension of Time to respond l
N *·-· r
i W .
1 Q to Igendagftis Objection to Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Complaint. The caption of l
l [LL'-! the pleadiiiggrifas incorrectly labeled as a "memorandum of law" and should have read i
l -- ' ?£¤—· .
_ LL "M§on f;;3§ I ¤ @55 `
E Plgncfilff Gertrude Bayonne hereby respectfully requests an extension of time to
i tile a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s
i Motion to File a Revised Amended Complaint dated December 9, 2003, pursuant to
l Local Civil Rule 9(b). Plaintiff requests an additional tifteen (15) days from the date the
i original responsive pleading was due to be filed, December 22, 2003. The proposed new
i ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED
__