Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 52

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ____________________________________ ) PETRO-HUNT, L.L.C., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 00­512 L v. ) ) Honorable Francis M. Allegra UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT The United States, pursuant to RCFC 6(b), requests an extension of time, to and including September 2, 2008, in which to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The United States' Answer is currently due July 14, 2008. The United States has not previously requested an extension of this deadline. On August 24, 2000, Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint in this case. See Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. # 1). Plaintiff alleged that the United States had taken certain mineral interests, which were also the subject of an action to quiet title, which Plaintiff had filed on February 18, 2000, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Id. Plaintiff acknowledged that its initial Complaint was, in essence, a savings action to allow Plaintiff to pursue just compensation if and when the District Court found that Plaintiff was indeed the owner of the mineral interests at issue. Id. ¶ 13. On November 2, 2000, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay and ordered that quarterly status reports be filed. (Dkt. # 6). The stay was in place until May 27, 2008, when the Court issued its Order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Lift the Stay. (Dkt. 50). In its Order, and consistent with the agreement presented by

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 52

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 2 of 3

the parties in the Joint Motion to Lift the Stay, the Court granted Plaintiff thirty days to file its Amended Complaint. Id. The initial Complaint in this case contained a single count with thirteen numbered paragraphs alleging that the United States had taken Plaintiff's mineral interests in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause. See Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. # 1). Conversely, the Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on June 25, 2008, contains seven counts, with 114 numbered paragraphs, and asserts temporary and permanent takings claims, as well as claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith, and reformation. See Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 50). Prior to filing the Joint Motion to Lift the Stay, the parties discussed the fact that Plaintiff intended to add numerous additional claims and allegations to the Amended Complaint. As a result, the parties agreed that it would be appropriate for the United States to have sixty (60) days from the filing of the Amended Complaint to Answer or otherwise respond. This is the same time frame that is provided to the United States to respond to an initial complaint under the Court's Rules. See RCFC 12(a)(1). The Court's Order lifting the stay directed the United States to answer "in accordance with the timing provisions in the RCFC." Because the United States has not previously filed an answer in this case and the time for filing an initial answer ran while the stay was in place, the Rules provide the United States with only ten days to respond to the Amended Complaint. See RCFC 15(a). Given the complexity of the Amended Complaint, the numerous additional legal theories presented, as well as the substantial number of new facts alleged, counsel for the United States requires the additional time to fully consider the new counts pled, the new claims raised,

2

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 52

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 3 of 3

research the new facts alleged, consider appropriate defenses, and coordinate with representatives from both the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture. Moreover, since it is likely that the United States will, in lieu of answering, move to dismiss some or all of the new counts based upon statute of limitations grounds, the United States requires sufficient time to prepare such motion. In a telephone conversation on July 1, 2008, Plaintiff's Counsel confirmed the agreement reached by the parties before the filing of the Joint Motion to Lift the Stay: that the United States should receive 60 days to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint. Moreover, counsel for Plaintiff has indicated that Plaintiff consents to the requested extension of time and does not oppose the granting of this motion. Given the challenges posed in responding to the Amended Complaint and the agreement of the parties to provide the United States 60 days to respond to the Amended Complaint, the United States respectfully requests that the Court grant it an extension, to and including September 2, 2008, in which to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. July 9, 2008 Respectfully submitted, RONALD J. TENPAS Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division /s/ James D. Gette JAMES D. GETTE Natural Resources Section Environment & Natural Resources Division Department of Justice P.O. Box 663 Washington, DC 20044-0663 Tel: 202-305-1461 Fax: 202-305-0267 Email: [email protected] 3