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


File Size: 40.0 kB
Pages: 1
Date: September 11, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 228 Words, 1,594 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/22186/35.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims ( 40.0 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:07-cv-00255-MMS

Document 35

Filed 09/11/2008

Page 1 of 1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
Nos. 07-255 C, 07-256 C, 07-257 C (CONSOLIDATED) (Filed: September 11, 2008) ************************************* SECURITAS GmbH WERKSCHUTZ, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * ************************************* ORDER On September 10, 2008, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to Reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("motion"). In its motion, plaintiff requests a sixty (60) day enlargement of time, to and including November 14, 2008, within which to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss.1 Plaintiff's response is currently due September 15, 2008. Plaintiff represents that defendant does not oppose its motion and that the reason for its request is "to meet with the Defendant and explore any possibility of a principled business resolution of the disputes currently before this Court." Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its response by no later than Friday, November 14, 2008. In the event that the parties require additional time beyond November 14­or believe that staying briefing on defendant's motion to dismiss is appropriate­in order to facilitate settlement negotiations, they should file the appropriate motion. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Margaret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SWEENEY Judge

Plaintiff states that it seeks an enlargement of time to file a reply to defendant's motion; however, plaintiff's motion actually concerns its response, not a reply, to defendant's motion.

1