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

I Case 3:03-cv—OO93€%/VIG Document 35 Filed O1/28I2004 Paget of 4 II
I
tl: U3 I
mtu JAN 28 A y
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT- 4; I
E FOR THE IIY3__`!;}_t`j*_ ; e·_‘ f
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT `
q SAMMIE GOSS CASE NO. 03-CV—935 (WIG) a
q PLAINTIFF
I
vs. I
I
FAIRFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET ‘ I
AL.
DEFENDANTS I
JANUARY 27, 2004 I
I
I
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME I
I
The defendants, Fairfield Housing Authority, Charles Feld, Marilyn McNee, and David
Belcher ("Defendants”), hereby move for an enlargement of time in which to file an answer and
affirmative defenses andfor otherwise respond to the Complaint filed by the pro se plaintiff,
q Sammie Goss ("Plaintiff"). In Support of this motion the Defendants represent the following:
I The Plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, attempted service by mail
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, with a request for waiver of service dated July 9, 2003. These
I Defendants waived service within the time set forth in the request for waiver. I
I I
I
I I
‘’·* — — - 7 . *T?f#—~—»—i"`__ I I 7 `
- 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 -
"1`—m—— I1I1I;;;;· e · I
"`PP-" f·e >;;;;;;E`_______ I an ` ` " TFPFPRPRPRPRPRPT

A Case 3:03-cv—OO93§¥V|G Document 35 Filed O1/2E_3i§OO4 Page 2 of 4

. I
l
y 2. The undersigned counsel appeared by notice dated August 27, 2003, which was Q
filed in Court on August 28, 2003. The handwritten complaint as it now stands was drafted and
filed by the pm se Plaintiff, however, and is not easily amenable to response or motion.
3. The case has been referred to Judge Garfinkel for all purposes.
l 4. At a status conference before Judge Gartinkel on November 3, 2003, the Plaintiff
represented that she had spoken to attorney Edwin Farrow, who would be entering an
appearance after his admission to practice before the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut. Attorney Farrow did not enter an appearance on behalf of the Plaintiffi and a
Scheduling Conference in Court subsequently scheduled for January 20, 2004 was cancelled.
5. By e—mail from the Court on January 22, 2004, the parties were notified that
g Judge Garfinkle had appointed Attorney Damon Kirschbaum pro bono counsel for the Plaintiff,
A and that a conference would be scheduled on February 3 or 5, 2004. Subsequent e-mail
indicated that the conference was tentatively scheduled for February 5, 2004. i l
6. The undersigned spoke to Attorney Kirschbaum by telephone on January 27,
2004, and he confirmed that he would be entering his appearance and reviewing the Complaint.
7. These Defendants have previously moved for an extension of time to file an
answer and defenses so that counsel could appear for the Plaintiff and review the complaint to
i determined whether to tile an amended complaint. l _ l A i
8. Pursuant to Loc. R. Civ. P. 7(b), the undersigned counsel states that he discussed i
the need for an enlargement of time in light of Attorney Kirschbaum’s appointment and l
2 i
l
V. Ei A g

l
l F
N Case 3:03-cv—OO93E-ISV IG Document 35 Filed O1/2§L2004 Page 3 of 4 - _ (
I - CJ I
I · ‘ l
ll l
imminent appearance, and that Attorney Kirschbaum has consented to this Motion. In addition,
the undersigned on this date also telephoned Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Morabito, who I
5 l
represents the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("I—IUD"), and
I who stated that he consents to this motion. The undersigned also telephoned the pm se Plaintiff
l to inform her of the filing of this Motion, and left a voice mail message. As of the filing of this
Motion, the undersigned is aware of no objection.
8. Pursuant to Loc. R. Civ. P. 7(b), the undersigned states that this is the i
I
Defendants’ sixth motion for enlargement of time to file an answer and affirmative defenses or E
otherwise respond to the Plaintiff’ s complaint. · - 1
WHEREFORE, the Defendants request that this Motion be granted and that the timeito R
file an answer and defenses and/or otherwise respond to the complaint be extended 20 days from
the date ofthe Court Conference on February 5, that is, February 25, 2004.
THE DEFENDANTS
FAIRFIELD HOUSING AUTHORITY, CHARLES
FELD, MARILYN MCNEE, AND DAVID I
BELCHER
. .--·-·r- ‘ l
k.-hvmnm-T"@*’€Qg7`#'l"_;"_il»*"if-iii,T_:;_._;'· I, —- Ml_a·¤"’ U"'
__ _ »» »·~- “·\___ __k_
By: - -;-T _.; CFC? I _ ,.11-. “ ‘· . -
Matthew M. Hausm ·· ct 0 966)
Pullman & Comley, LLC -
850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
Telephone (203) 33*0-2000
Facsimile (203) 576-8888 g
A l
3 I
l _________________________,___,l
rw t I

I " I""‘I `
I
Case 3:03-cv—OO93€~\{VIG Document 35 Filed O1/2§/2004 Page 4 of 4 I
· - F It Vx
I
CERTIFICATION
l Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 5 (b), I hereby certify that a copy of the above was
mailed on January 27, 2004 to all counsel and pro se parties of record.
For the plaintiff SAMMIE GOSS:
Sammie Goss, Pro Se
10 Ridgeley Avenue
Fairfield, CT 06825
Douglas P. Morabito, Esq. ,
U.S. Attorney’s Office
157 Church Street, 23rd Floor I
New Haven, CT 06510
I
Damon A. R. Kirschbaum, Esq.
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 300 .
Colchester, CT 06415 r -

...,_,,_._, lzwrm-U"
.»’_»» · , »~-.,.,_
in Jyrfi ` ‘ .,.Ii....»»~~·
‘"'I Matthevif . Hausman (ct80966)
BPRTI68710.5/MXHxs05395v1
I
I
4 I
I
I
I I
I— |···—····—······-. “