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

Case 1:07-cv-00350-CCM

Document 30

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS __________ No. 07-350 T (Judge Christine O.C. Miller) J. CARDENAS & SONS FARMING, INC., JUAN CARDENAS AND GRACIELA CARDENAS Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant,

No. 07-351 T RIO VISTA CORPORATION, JUAN CARDENAS AND GRACIELA CARDENAS, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, __________ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME __________

Pursuant to RCFC 6.1, the United States respectfully moves for an enlargement of time of five days from April 11, 2008, to and including April 16, 2008, within which to file its reply

-1-

Case 1:07-cv-00350-CCM

Document 30

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 2 of 3

to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss In Part Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("opposition") and Supplement to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss In Part Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("supplement") filed in the abovecaptioned matter. This is the third enlargement of time requested for this purpose, the first two requests having been granted for a total of twenty-five days. In an order dated April 1, 2008, the Court granted the Government's motion for enlargement of time to file its reply to plaintiffs' opposition to its motion to dismiss in part. The April 1 order stated that there would be no further extensions granted. Defendant's trial attorney believes that there are extenuating circumstances which make this request for an additional enlargement of time appropriate. On March 13, 2008, plaintiffs filed a supplement to its opposition. This supplement raised new issues regarding Juan and Graciela Cardenases' liability for civil penalties during 1999 and whether the Cardenases' liability for those penalties is separate and distinct from Rio Vista Corporation's ("Rio Vista") tax liabilities. The supplement also raised new issues about the Internal Revenue Service's alleged "arbitrary" allocation of certain payments made by plaintiffs. Defendant's trial attorney requested an expedited supplemental defense recommendation from the Internal Revenue Service with respect to the new issues raised by plaintiffs in their supplement. The Internal Revenue Service provided the supplemental views requested. Defendant's trial attorney required more time to complete her review of the supplemental defense recommendations and to complete the draft reply brief than had been anticipated. This enlargement of time is requested in order to allow additional time for the supervising attorney to review the draft reply brief and to allow additional time to finalize the

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00350-CCM

Document 30

Filed 04/11/2008

Page 3 of 3

draft reply brief.1 Plaintiffs' counsel has authorized us to state that plaintiffs have no objection to the allowance of this motion. WHEREFORE, defendant requests that its motion be granted. Respectfully submitted,

s/Jennifer Dover Spriggs JENNIFER DOVER SPRIGGS 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) 307-0840

NATHAN J. HOCHMAN Assistant Attorney General DAVID GUSTAFSON Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section s/David Gustafson Of Counsel

April 11, 2008

Defendant's trial attorney also had a brief due on April 11, 2008, in Khalil Hamdan and Lana K. Hamdan v. United States, Fed. Cl. No. 02-384 T, and was unable to submit the draft reply brief in this case early enough to provide adequate time for review by the supervising attorney. -3-

1