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

Case 1:03-cv-00446-EGB

Document 145

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) LEROY BISHOP, et al.,

Case No. 03-446C Senior Judge Bruggink

PLAINTIFFS' CONSENT MOTION FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF CRAIG CHALMERS'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THEIR OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel and with the consent of Defendant, respectfully request that the Court enlarge their time from February 1, 2007, to and including February 8, 2007, to file their Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff Craig Chalmers's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and their Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and in support of this motion state: Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff Craig Chalmers's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and their Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was originally due to be filed on or before January 22, 2007. On January 22, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consent motion for an extension of time until February 1 to file their Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff Craig Chalmers's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and their Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Also on January 22, 2007, the Court granted that motion. As it has developed, plaintiffs need more time in which to complete their Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff Craig Chalmers's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and

Case 1:03-cv-00446-EGB

Document 145 2

Filed 01/31/2007

Page 2 of 2

their Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, due to the press of other litigation. For example, since they filed their first request for an extension of time in this case, the Court of Appeals has unexpectedly required them to prepare a much shorter version of appellants' brief in Carlsen v. United States, Case No. 2007-5011 (Fed. Cir.), by February 5, and they have had to devote much time to that. For these reasons and since the record is complicated and lengthy and since defendant's pleading raises issues which plaintiffs have not previously briefed, Plaintiffs' counsel need an additional 7 days in which to complete preparation of their Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff Craig Chalmers's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and their Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. On January 31, 2007, counsel for defendant indicated that she did not oppose this request. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court grant them 7 additional days, from February 1 to and including February 8, 2007, in which to file their Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff Craig Chalmers's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and their Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Respectfully submitted, ________/s/ Alan Banov_____________ ALAN BANOV Alan Banov & Associates 1819 L Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036-3830 (202) 822-9699 Fax: (202) 842-9331 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs