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

Case 1:07-cv-00350-CCM

Document 28

Filed 04/01/2008

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 ten days from April 1, 2008, to and including April 11, 2008, within which to file its reply to

-1-

Case 1:07-cv-00350-CCM

Document 28

Filed 04/01/2008

Page 2 of 3

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 second enlargement of time requested for this purpose, the first request having been granted for a total of fifteen days.1 In an order dated March 14, 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 March 14 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, the Government filed its initial motion for enlargement of time to reply to plaintiffs' opposition. After the Government filed its initial motion for enlargement of time, 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 has provided the supplemental views requested. Defendant's trial attorney requests additional time in order to complete her

The first request sought an enlargement of time of fifteen days from March 17, 2008, to and including April 1, 2008. The enlargement of time should have been from March 21, 2008. -2-

1

Case 1:07-cv-00350-CCM

Document 28

Filed 04/01/2008

Page 3 of 3

review of the supplemental defense recommendation and to finalize the Government's reply to plaintiffs' opposition and the supplement to that opposition. This enlargement would also allow time for the parties to meet to discuss the pending issues. Defendant's trial attorney left a message with counsel for plaintiffs. That message has not yet been answered, therefore, plaintiffs have neither objected to nor agreed 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 1, 2008