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


File Size: 61.5 kB
Pages: 3
Date: January 13, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 510 Words, 2,825 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22517/29.pdf

Download Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut ( 61.5 kB)


Preview Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut
_ Case 3:0 —cv-00400-CFD Document 29 Filed 01/12/2004 Page 1 of3
W O O 1
tF11I.’E'l§ 1
1
21111:11.5 I T 1* ZY {
UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT$C£)l$RiI`E"1 . I; CGUEE`1
DISTRICT or CONNECTICUT. 12 11 *·I»·1U. CT`.
SAMUE BowENs ; No. 3;02cv0c400(cF1;>) 1
MARK RANGE, ET AL. JANUARY 9, 2004 1
M-oTIoN Fon EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN
wrrrcrr T0 FILE RESPONSIVE I>LEA1>rNc
T e defendants in the above-captioned matter respectfully move this Court for a thirty- 1
day exte sion of time within which to file a pleading responsive to the plaintiffs complaint, up

to and i cluding February ll, 2004. In support of this motion, the defendants represent as I
- follows:
1. On November 3, 2003, the defendants in this matter moved for Security for Costs
in the a ount of $500. On November 10, 2003, this Court granted the motion, ordering the
plaintiff o provide security for costs in the amount of $500. Since that time, the plaintiff has
failed to post such a security. On December 23, 2003, the defendants moved for summary
- dismissal which motion is currently pending before this Court. It would be preferable to have ‘ 1
the Moti n for Summary Dismissal resolved before the parties spend time and resources
addressin this matter further.
. I 1
1
1
1
· I
1
2J , 2, , 2, 2 2 , 2I ,2-, 2 _I ___I ___I 2 ,-___,-_,_____, ....
‘T—T·m+ L , 2, · 2 , 2 , 2, 2, 2 , 22- , 2, 2 2 _I 2, _I -__,2___2_ I I I

“ I
. . Case 3:0 -cv-OO40%%FD Document 29 Filed O1/1ۤOO4 Page 2 of 3 _
I
I
2. This is the third motion for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading
since the Court’s ruling on defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement, but the first
motion iz` r an extension of time since the Motion for Summary Dismissal was filed.
3. The undersigned counsel attempted to contact plaintiffs counsel in order to
determin plaintiff s position on this matter, and left a message, but has not yet heard back from
him.
DEFENDANTS,
Mark Strange, et al.
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL I
BY: E- \. 2
Lynn . it bam I
Assistant Attorney General |
Federal Bar No. ct08575
ll0 Sherman Street
I Hartford, CT 06105 I
Telephone No. (860) 808-5450 I
Fax No. (860) 808-5591 p
E—mail: [email protected] I
I I I
I I

I
I I
I
I
” I
N
I 2
I I
I l
_ I

- I · Case 3:03-cv-OO4OE1—CFD Document 29 Filed O1/12[2004 Page 3 of 3
J O I
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid
to the following on this 9th day of January, 2004;
John R. Williams, Esq.
Williamsiand Pattis, LLC
I 51 Elm greet, Suite 409
New I-Ia wen, CT 06510 )
` UO; ` I
Lynn D. ittenbrink
Assistant Attorney General
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
3 I
I I I