Free Motion to Stay - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00250-CCM

Document 9

Filed 08/08/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

PAUL D. RIPPA, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-250C (Judge Christine O.C. Miller)

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY THE TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR AN EXTENSION Defendant, the United States, respectfully requests this Court stay the time for it to respond to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment until 28 days after the Court rules upon defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If the Court denies this motion, defendant seeks, in the alternative, an extension of time until October 1, 2007 to respond to plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff's counsel has stated that he has not determined whether or not he opposes this motion, and that he will decide after reading defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed its complaint on April 24, 2007. On June 18, 2007, defendant sought and was granted an extension of time to respond to the complaint, until August 9, 2007. On June 26, 2007 plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment. On June 28, 2007, defendant sought and was granted an extension of time to respond to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment until September 4, 2007. Defendant now asks the Court to stay the time to respond to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment until 28 days after it rules upon defendant's motion to dismiss. Since filing the previous motion to extend, defendant has researched the issues presented in

Case 1:07-cv-00250-CCM

Document 9

Filed 08/08/2007

Page 2 of 4

plaintiff's complaint and determined that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims because the statutes plaintiff relies upon in his complaint are not money mandating. It would be inefficient and a waste of the Government's and the Court's time to address the issues raised in the motion for summary judgment if the Court agrees with defendant's analysis. Accordingly defendant asks the Court to to stay defendant's obligation to respond to the motion for summary judgment until the Court has addressed the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court stay the time for the Government to respond to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment until 28 days after the Court rules on defendant's motion to dismiss. Should the Court deny this motion, defendant respectfully requests an extension of time until October 1, 2007, to respond to plaintiff's motion.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

/s/ Mark A. Melnick MARK A. MELNICK Assistant Director

Case 1:07-cv-00250-CCM

Document 9

Filed 08/08/2007

Page 3 of 4

/s/Carrie A. Dunsmore CARRIE A. DUNSMORE Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 305-7576 Fax: (202) 514-8624 August 8, 2007 Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:07-cv-00250-CCM

Document 9

Filed 08/08/2007

Page 4 of 4

Certificate of Filing I hereby certify that on this 8th day of August, 2007, a copy of "Defendant's Motion to Stay the Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. /s/Carrie A. Dunsmore Carrie A. Dunsmore