Free Motion to Continue - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—O1008-SRU Document 40 Filed O1/20/2005 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OE CONNECTICUT
I
HALOX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., I
I
Plaintiff] I Civil Action No. 3:03 CV 01008 (SRU)
I
v. I
I
DRIQPPING WET WATER, INC., I
RICHARD L. SAMPSON and I
ALLISON H. SAl\/[PSON, I
~ I
Defendants. I
|
ASSENTED TO MOTION TO CONTINUE
Plaintiff hereby moves this I-Ionorable Court to as follows:
1. The complaint in Civil Action No. 3:03 CV 01008 was filed on June 6, 2003.
2. The complaint in Civil Action No. 3:04 CV 00752 was initially filed in the United
States District Court, Westem District of Texas (SA—03—CA-l048—OG), and was transferred to
this Court on May 4, 2004.
3. The cases were consolidated by an ordered entered on September 13, 2004.
4. With respect to Civil Action No. 3 :03 CV 01008, in November of 2003, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court initially scheduled a
hearing for I une 22, 2004 and, in a joint letter to the Court dated June 16, 2004, the patties
requested that the hearing be adj oumed pending the outcome of a then to be scheduled
mediation. The hearing was adj oumed was thereafter rescheduled for August 18, 2004.
5. In the aforementioned joint letter dated June 16, 2004, the parties requested that
the Court refer the above actions to mediation for possible resolution.

Case 3:03-cv—O1008-SRU Document 40 Filed O1/20/2005 Page 2 of 3
6. On June 16, 2002, the Court issued orders referring both actions to mediation
before Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel.
7. On July 22, 2004, the Court issued notices in both actions indicating that a
settlement conference had been scheduled for August 30, 2004.
. 8. On August 30, 2004 counsel for both parties met with Magistrate Judge Garlinlcel
and explained that a contractual issue with a third party and defendants had arisen just days
before that would have a material affect on the ability of the parties to settle the matter.
Consequently, the mediation was rescheduled for November 16, 2004 to allow the parties time to
address this issue and to attempt to have the third patty present at the rescheduled mediation.
9. On November 16, 2004, the parties and their respective counsel as well as the
aforementioned third party attended the mediation with Magistrate Judge Gartinkel.
10. N Since that time the parties have been discussing the technology at issue in this
matter in an attempt to explore possible settlement options.
ll. Counsel for defendants, Edward Scofield, has assented to this motion to continue.
Plaintiff hereby respectfully moves this Court for an order that the hearing on the motion to
dismiss is continued and will be rescheduled at the status conference that the Court has
scheduled for January 27, 2005.
Resp? ly su mitted,
\ /4f
Michael J. Rye (ct 18354)
Charles F. O'Brien (ct 22074)
Cantor Colburn LLP
55 Griffin Road South
Bloomfield, Comiecticut 06002
Telephone: (860) 286-2929
Facsimile: (860) 286—0l 15

Case 3:03-cv-01008-SRU Document 40 Filed O1/20/2005 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ASSENTED TO MOTION TO
CONTINUE was mailed, via first-class, postage pre—paid, on the day of January, 2005 to
the following counsel of record.
Edward R. Scofield, Esq.
Zeldes, Needle & Cooper
1000 Lafayette Boulevard
PO Box 1740 /
Bridgepmt, CT 06601-1740 /
Cliar1es\E/O’ n ;»~ “‘“" I