Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00974-CFD Document 19 Fi|ei§lj(0(2$/2qQ3l iq-i,”E:$giej Q)
‘ 3 l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
a ____ X l
Tl;l,E AMEiRICilkNfEOARD OF
AN_ESTl—lESIOLOGY, INC., : Case No: 3:03C\/974 (CFD) 4
{ 2*3 elaimrrr, 2
Joiirxi stigeneu iiinutrv, ivio., i
Defendants. OCTOBER 13, 2003
{x3` X
QE.EENQ£~§IL§..l\.1l..Q.LFJ.Q.d-§.).'...QQ.Nc..$.E.2.N.T..._F0R._E....X...T.......ENSi0N 0E.TLLl.E
Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), Defendant, John Stephen Naulty,
U MD., hereby requests an extension of time up to and including November 24, 2003, in I
_n' · ~-r- I which to respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. J
x_"» FAQ`- I
’ [Qi`-\. {Defendant requests this extension of time in order to determine if Plaintiff has
$2% accepted his offer to resoive this case. On September 25, 2003, Defendant’s counsel l
il *5* sent a written oounteroffer to Plaintiffs counsel. Plaintiffs Board of Directors will be__ LH(,;; N
T5 rneeting on October 26, 2003 at which time it will evaluate Defendant's September 25, i
003 counteroffer. This meeting date is subsequent to the date `that Defendants
responsive pleading is currently due — October 15, 2003. Accordingly, Defendant will not
"EE. know if his counteroffer has been agreed to (in part or in full) until after his responsive
is due. Defendant is an individual with limited resources who desires to
onserve these resources.
Further, if the parties are able to reach agreement, additional time will be required

to document the settlement. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, Defendant will
need time to prepare a responsive pleading, which is all likelihood will be a motion to
l
mriemtciszstociiwsssimips
i
l


—— ee ‘ __"-°¤j¤j=*EfjW;i‘s'£¢i??jr;;?;g,;§§§g_:,;;;%ie,,,;,,ii ,‘_,,_ _ _


*· —— ‘ -- ' ""i”j° _.,, _,__i _ _