Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00344-LB

Document 112

Filed 08/01/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS No. 01-344 T Judge Lawrence J. Block

ROBERT J. ISLER and SUSAN L. ISLER, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

The United States respectfully moves the Court for an enlargement of time of 21 days, from August 7, 2006, to and including August 28, 2006, within which to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. This is the first enlargement requested for this purpose. Plaintiffs' counsel has advised that plaintiff has no objection to the enlargement of time. In support of this motion, defendant submits the following: 1. On July 17/18, 2006, plaintiffs filed responses to our motions to dismiss in this

case and the companion cases Scuteri v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 01-358 T and Prati v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 02-60 T. Pursuant to Court orders dated July 6, 2006, in which the Court extended the time for plaintiffs to file their responses, defendant's replies are due on or before August 7, 2006. 2. The demands of other cases prevented the undersigned attorney of record from

-1-

Case 1:01-cv-00344-LB

Document 112

Filed 08/01/2006

Page 2 of 3

giving serious consideration to plaintiff's voluminous responses from the time of their filing until Tuesday, July 25, 2006. From July 17 to July 25, the undersigned devoted most of his time to two briefs in Dismore v. U.S., Fed. Cl. No. 04-1787 T, an AMCOR case pending before Judge Allegra. The undersigned prepared and, on July 25, 2006, filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend in Dismore. See Dismore v. U.S., Fed. Cl. No. 04-1787 T, Oppn. [Doc. #39]. In addition, the undersigned prepared a post oral argument reply brief for Dismore and submitted it for internal review on July 25, 2006. At the time the reply was submitted for internal review, it was due pursuant to Court order on July 28, 2006. The reply was not filed, however, because, on July 26, 2006, the Court mooted the briefing by granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to withdraw the claim that had given rise to the briefing and oral argument. In addition, also during the week of July 17, the undersigned devoted time to preparation, finalizing, and filing of a motion to dismiss in Tempelman v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 06-414 T, Mot. [Doc. #6]. 3. Beginning on July 25, 2006 and continuing to the date of the filing of this motion,

the undersigned has devoted substantial time to drafting a reply to plaintiffs' response in Prati, and intends to submit a draft for internal review on August 1, 2006. After review and finalizing of the Prati reply, the undersigned intends to draft substantially similar replies with respect to plaintiffs' responses in Isler and Scuteri. 4. 2006. 5. The requested 21-day enlargement of time is necessary to provide defendant's The undersigned will be out of the office on Thursday and Friday, August 3-4,

counsel with adequate time to prepare, review, finalize, and/or file all three replies in Prati, Isler,

-2-

Case 1:01-cv-00344-LB

Document 112

Filed 08/01/2006

Page 3 of 3

and Scuteri. Respectfully submitted, s/Bart D. Jeffress BART D. JEFFRESS Attorney of Record U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division Court of Federal Claims Section Post Office Box 26 Ben Franklin Post Office Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 307-6496 (202) 514-9440 (fax) EILEEN J. O'CONNOR Assistant Attorney General DAVID GUSTAFSON Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section STEVEN I. FRAHM Assistant Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section s/Steven I. Frahm Of Counsel August 1, 2006

-3-

1839200.11