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

Case 1:07-cv-00725-MMS

Document 18

Filed 02/26/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS No. 07-725C (Judge Sweeney) BRISTOL BAY AREA ) HEALTH CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) _____________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF BRISTOL BAY AREA HEALTH CORPORATION'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation ("Bristol Bay") comes before this Court on a Motion for Enlargement of Time in which to file a Response to the United States' Motion to Dismiss Bristol Bay's Complaint. Bristol Bay requests an additional thirty days, until April 2, 2008, in which to respond. Attorney of Record for the United States has stated that he does not oppose this Motion. In further support of this Motion Bristol Bay states as follows: (1) On October 12, 2007, Bristol Bay filed with this Court its Complaint in this action. (2) On February 1, 2008, defendant, the United States, filed its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on jurisdictional grounds. Bristol Bay's response to that Motion is currently due on March 3, 2008.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00725-MMS

Document 18

Filed 02/26/2008

Page 2 of 3

(3) The United States did not at any point prior to, or simultaneous with, its Motion to Dismiss file an Administrative Record as contemplated by Rule 52.1 of this Court. (4) On February 8, 2008, Bristol Bay filed a Motion with this Court requesting, among other things, that the United States be required to file the Administrative Record in this case as required by Rule 52.1. (5) By Response of February 25, 2008, the United States declined to file the Record. (6) Bristol Bay submits that it is both necessary and appropriate to resolve the issue regarding whether an Administrative Record must be filed herein as required by Rule 52.1 before Bristol Bay is required to respond to the United States' Motion to Dismiss. Among other things, Bristol Bay notes that Rule 52.1 (b) provides that the "parties may move for partial or other judgment on the administrative record filed with the court." At present this is not an option available to Bristol Bay since, in fact, no Record has been filed. (7) Bristol Bay has been given until March 13, 2008, to respond to the United States' decision to forego the filing of the Record. Conclusion For all these reasons, Bristol Bay submits that it is both fair and appropriate to allow Bristol Bay to respond to the position of the United States that it is not required to file a Record in this case, and further, to give this Court sufficient time to consider and rule on the issue of whether an Administrative Record must be filed, as contemplated by

2

Case 1:07-cv-00725-MMS

Document 18

Filed 02/26/2008

Page 3 of 3

Rule 52.1, before Bristol Bay is required to respond to the Government's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. A proposed Order is attached.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Geoffrey D. Strommer by s/Lisa F. Ryan Attorney of Record Stephen D. Osborne, Of Counsel Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP 806 SW Broadway, Suite 900 Portland, OR 97205 503-242-1745 (Tel) 503-242-1072 (Fax) s/Lisa F. Ryan Lisa F. Ryan, Of Counsel Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP 2120 L Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20037 202-822-8282 (Tel) 202-296-8834 (Fax) Attorneys for Bristol Bay Area Health Corp. February 26, 2008

3