Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 29

Filed 04/05/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

________________________________________________ BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM ) NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and ) MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 3:03 CV 00644 (CFD) ) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE ) COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and ) AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., ) ) Defendants ) ________________________________________________) April 2, 2004 PLAINTIFFS= OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF Plaintiffs Bruce Charles Ryan, Russell William Newton, Robert Fitzpatrick, and Merit Capital Associates, Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs") hereby object to Defendants' March 30, 2004, Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' request for a second, excessive extension of time to file a simple reply brief. Plaintiffs timely filed their response brief, Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on February 17, 2004. Under Local Rule 7(d), Defendants had ten days, as computed under Federal Rule 6(A), to file their up to ten-page reply. On the eve of that deadline expiring, Defendants moved for and obtained an extension of time to March 31, 2004 to file a reply brief.

1

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 29

Filed 04/05/2004

Page 2 of 3

Now, one day before the expiration of the already extended deadline, the Defendants move for an additional 23 days, to and including April 23, 2004, to file a simple brief. The extension is excessive and seeks to unnecessarily delay this action. Moreover, the reason cited by Defendants for the needed extension should be unpersuasive. Defendants continue to argue that they need to see the brief filed by the Gwynn plaintiffs in the companion case of Gwynn et al v. National Union et al, Docket Number 3:03CV01154(CFD) ("Gwynn") before they can file a reply brief in this action. The arguments and positions taken by the Plaintiffs in the Gwynn action should have no bearing on what the Defendants file in a reply brief in this action. Under Local Rule7(d), the reply brief "must be strictly confined to discussion of matters raised by the responsive brief." Thus, whatever is filed by the plaintiffs in the Gwynn action in response to the Motion to Dismiss, should have absolutely no bearing on what these Defendants brief in reply to the responsive brief of Plaintiffs in this action. Wherefore, the Plaintiffs respectfully object to Defendants' second, excessive extension of time to file a reply brief. PLAINTIFFS, BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and MERIT CAPITAL ASSOCIATES INC., By________/s/________________________ Peter M. Nolin (ct06223) Sandak Hennessey & Greco LLP 970 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06905 (203) 425-4200 (203) 325-8608 (fax) [email protected]

2

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD

Document 29

Filed 04/05/2004

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, on April 2, 2004, to the following counsel:

James R. Hawkins, II, Esq. Finn Dixon & Herling, LLP One Landmark Square, Suite 1400 Stamford, CT 06901-2689 Mario DiNatale Silver Golub & Teitell LLP 184 Atlantic Street P.O. Box 389 Stamford CT 06904-0389 ______/s/____________ Peter M. Nolin

3