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

· Case 3:03-cv-01053JCH Document 30 Filed O1/%2004 Page of 1 .
= . t* ; l l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ai,
llllllt Jlill ~— *3 A lb- l 2 i
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, 1 -303CV1007 ICI-Th/L/L,
Plaintiff ; X - ·- ‘ , l
Z PARKER HANNIFIN CORP.’S
v. : MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE
MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR STAY
: I
PARKER HANN IF IN CORPORATION, :
Defendant : December 30, 2003 l
.............................~................................ l
Q DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM IN
` \ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY
§\ A ’
Pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendant, Parker ‘
I Hannihn Corporation, respectfully submits this Motion for Extension of Time in response to the
A I Plaintiffs Motion for Stay. ·
- The background of this case is set out in length in previously tiled court papers. On
December 12, 2003, the Plaintiff moved for a stay based on the assertion that the claims against
i the Defendant in this action arise out the same facts that engendered its claims against the
..0 .
I Defentght inifioycurrent, private ADR. Thus, the Plaintiff is now seeking a stay pending
. li Lg;
mpl$on ofidgbitration under private ADR.
__H "" li;2 E
...,,, 'The Régidant takes issue with the Plaintiff s assertions in its Motion for Stay, and plans
L1. § 22 2
to file§1 opggion brief However, for reasons set forth below, the Defendant moves for an
"" :>
extension of thirty days beyond the 21-day period set forth in Local Rule 7(a), by which a party
i shall tile a memorandum in opposition to any motion.
l
+11; }'’' ?Y’ '‘‘‘' ii""‘“C* L ,
TT`F`i ` ··:’ :2 ·ee:· ~;;~——=—‘= _