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

-“__-_"_m_.m.M“n_m_“m—_m____i__J_M____,__;_m“..L..;..-———---——‘*‘;_ ' ` l
· I _ ase v—OO666-AWT Document 21 Filed 03/05/2004 Pa3,e5‘b9I&1épr¤·I9ff/ I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT?. .3 i 2; ii :
.i.,:.: tier I - * ‘
_________________________ _ _______......».......... - ........... . X . .. »-2 *W ‘t
LINDA sTuRM, ; IL AcrIoNi’N%>t Ut\i¤» L lt
Plaintiff, :03C\/0666 (AWT) l
v.
ROCKY HILL BOARD OF EDUCATION
` : FEBRUARY 26, 2004 _
Defendant. :
...................~.......................................... . X
PLAlNTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO i
THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
‘ The plaintiff, Linda Sturm, moves to extend the deadline to respond to the defendants
Motion to Dismiss from February 25, 2004 to March 10, 2004. This is the plaintiffs first request
for an extension of the deadline to respond. Defendants counsel, Martha Shaw, represented
that the defendant does not oppose the plaintifts motion for a two·week extension.
The plaintiff requests an extension because Tanya Wolanic, the associate who had been
primarily handling the case, left the firm to accept a position with the law firm of Jackson Lewis
and started in her new position on February 2, 2004. Although the undersigned counsel has
hired a new associate, Tammy lvlarzigliano, who started on February 19, 2004, she has been
unable to complete the brief in opposition to the defendants motion, while simultaneously taking
over Attorney Woianic’s entire case load. 2.,,

cfriiiy <-FI ..... .
to and lnclziding rYl,,,.·Li._ , ,,1 ,,.,,,q_ Ejjj;.§;§ ‘·`·*r··‘
it is so orrie Q;-Q, M
E§'it%““'l}“ti`T""i’B`Z5EhipY€?€n`Z{T.FY""`8.£»|.
IHNIQGT ,,,.,§Ij I 0-'sl . \’
- ...., .
i is Y I? T ‘ F or*+*--?#Z=.;;;;2;;?;.;
`i‘F‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘i‘s li T ‘ ; r . ·; 5 -;~= e·rL·—·t·-··-—-—·-—-·—-—-——-—-_ ,—_ g . _ g
iiisiiis s sis si F
;; ·; .```Y iii?-f*f-°?Ti`..`..i.. .. 2 .. 2 .. L __ L __ E ··s - as-